Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Oct 2003

Vol. 572 No. 3

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern)

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

I am pleased to bring the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 2003 to the House. I look forward to Deputies' contributions. This short Bill is important and extremely urgent. It is specifically focused in so far as it deals exclusively with one important aspect of oil pollution – civil liability and compensation – as the title of the Bill indicates.

This Bill amends existing legislation to give effect to two internationally agreed instruments which, taken together, increase almost sixfold the limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution resulting from spills of persistent oil from tankers. The two instruments can be attributed to the reassessment at EU and international levels of many aspects of the regulatory arrangements regarding maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment, following the Erika disaster off the coast of France in December 1999. An examination of the arrangements which apply at international level regarding liability and compensation in respect of pollution caused by oil tankers was undertaken in this context.

Compensation is payable in accordance with the 1992 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, known as the liability convention, and the 1992 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, known as the fund convention. The Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Acts of 1988 and 1998 give effect to these conventions. The liability convention governs the liability of ship owners for oil pollution damage. The convention lays down the principle of strict liability for ship owners and creates a system of compulsory liability insurance. The ship owner is normally entitled to limit his or her liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of his or her ship. The fund convention is supplementary to the liability convention.

The main function of the international oil pollution compensation fund, the IOPCF, is to provide supplementary compensation for damage under the liability convention. The compensation payable by the IOPCF for any one incident is limited to 135 million special drawing rights, or SDRs, which equates to about €180 million. This includes the sum paid by the ship owner or his or her insurer under the liability convention. A claims manual has been published by the IOPCF to assist parties who have been affected by an incident in presenting claims. The first of the two internationally agreed instruments relates to the compensation levels which apply under the 1992 conventions.

While the examination has been under way at the IOPCF since the establishment of a working group in April 2000, it was considered that action needed to be taken in relation to compensation levels without awaiting the completion of the working group's business. The total amount of compensation – 135 million SDRs – fixed in the 1992 fund convention was considered unacceptably low. It was decided to increase the compensation levels by about 50% to a total of 203 million SDRs. The increases which are to apply internationally are to take effect on 1 November 2003. The Bill gives effect to these measures and accordingly needs to be enacted by that date.

While the IOPCF working group is continuing its examination, its deliberations have led to the adoption of a protocol to the fund convention in May 2003 at the International Maritime Organisation. The protocol is the second of the two instruments to which I referred earlier. It provides for the establishment of a supplementary compensation fund, which will further increase the amount of compensation payable to victims to 750 million SDRs, or approximately €1 billion. The supplementary fund was initially proposed by the European Commission as an EU measure. Member states preferred to pursue the matter in an international context, however, and adoption of the protocol with considerable support from EU states followed. Member states have been urged to introduce legislation to give effect to the protocol at the earliest opportunity, before the end of the year if possible. Annual contributions to the IOPCF are levied by the fund administration on oil importers in member states that have imported by sea more than 150,000 tonnes of oil in the previous calendar year.

Three importers in the State are liable for contributions to the fund: the ESB, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation and Aughinish Alumina. The size of annual contributions varies according to the amount of oil eligible for levy and the number and size of claims settled in any one year. Claims arising from a costly incident can push up the contribution required in a given year. The total contribution made by the Irish importers in 2002 was about €200,000. While it is not possible to estimate accurately the effects of the revised limits, it is not anticipated that the current contribution levels will be significantly affected.

The provision of adequate compensation for victims of oil pollution from tankers must be viewed as part of a wider framework involving the prevention of pollution and the response to incidents. I had hoped to introduce the provisions of this Bill as part of the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003, a wide ranging Bill relating to aspects of the marine environment which was published on 3 July 2003 and referred to the Seanad. The provisions relating to the increased limits have, however, been fast-tracked and published separately in view of the approaching deadline of 1 November.

The Bill as published was amended by the Seanad. It now includes amendments to the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Acts 1988 to 1998 which relate to the supplementary fund protocol. Drafting work had commenced in January 2003 prior to the adoption of the protocol at international level. Provisions relating to the protocol were not, therefore, included in the Bill as published. As both sets of provisions involve amendments to the same legislation, it was considered more efficient and rational to include both elements in the same Bill.

The Bill before us updates our legislation regarding civil liability arising out of pollution from oil tankers. The Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 updates our legislation on the protection of the marine environment by giving effect in our law to several internationally agreed instruments. These include: the Protocol to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage; the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships 2001; and Annexe Vl to the MARPOL Convention – the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, done at London on 2 November 1973, as amended by the protocol done at London on 17 February 1978, MARPOL 73/78. I look forward to discussing the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill with Deputies in due course.

I also mention the Sea Pollution (Hazardous and Noxious Substances) (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill 2000, which is currently before the House. This Bill gives effect in Irish law to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996, HNS convention. The Bill complements the arrangements regarding civil liability and compensation for oil pollution which are the subject of the Bill before us.

EU member states, including Ireland, have been to the fore in recent years in advocating improvements at international level in safety standards for ships and the protection of the marine environment. Ireland was one of a number of EU member states which co-sponsored the request to the International Maritime Organisation leading to the increased limits which are the subject of the Bill. EU member states were also prominent in advocating and supporting the adoption of the supplementary fund protocol.

Following the Erika incident, measures have been introduced or agreed on the regulation of ship classification societies; the accelerated phasing out of single hull oil tankers; the strengthening of port state control measures; and ship reporting arrangements. The European Maritime Safety Agency was established by regulation in August 2002 for the purpose of ensuring a high, uniform and effective level of maritime safety and prevention of pollution from ships within the EU. The agency is to enable the Commission to offer the full range of professional services needed to discharge its duties in this connection. All member states are represented on the board of the agency.

The reassessment process undertaken in the wake of the Erika incident was given added impetus in November 2002 when the Bahamas registered tanker Prestige, laden with 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, broke in two off the coast of Galicia, spilling an unknown but substantial quantity of its cargo. EU Ministers committed themselves to building on the progress made in the previous few years. To that end, a number of new measures were introduced.

The EU Council of Ministers and the Parliament have adopted a proposal by the Commission to further accelerate the phasing out of single hull tankers and to ban the carriage of heavy grades of fuel oil in single hull tankers. EU member states have requested the IMO to introduce similar arrangements to be applied internationally.

The Commission recently published a proposal to amend the regulations to provide the agency with the necessary legal competence on the pollution response and to specify its role in maritime security and the training of seafarers. This proposal is being examined at official working group level by the member states. A proposal by the Commission concerning sanctions for offences involving pollution of the marine environment is at present under consideration at EU official working group level.

Belgium, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom decided earlier this year to present the IMO with a joint request to designate certain maritime areas as particularly sensitive sea areas to strengthen its protection of particularly vulnerable areas. The limit of the PSSA proposed coincides with the 15th meridian, the Porcupine Bank, and includes part of the special waters of the north west Europe zone, as defined in the MARPOL Convention; the English Channel and coastal waters; and, certain parts of pollution response areas and exclusive economic zones along Spanish, French and Portuguese coasts. The aim of the exercise is to protect our marine environment and coastline from oil spills by discouraging vessels from entering into the PSSA. It was proposed to ban certain tankers. Others, for example, double hull and some single hull tankers, would have to state their intention to cross the area 48 hours in advance. The PSSA request was considered by the marine environment protection committee in July 2003. Irish experts from several Departments and agencies together with colleagues from five other states attended to support the request. The MEPC agreed in principle to the request for designation and referred the matter to an expert navigation committee for examination. This committee is expected to report to the MEPC next year. The MEPC did not accede to the request to ban tankers as proposed. It is open to the states concerned to introduce other protective measures. Possible proposals in this regard are being considered by the officials and experts concerned.

While attention has properly been given to disasters such as the Erika and the Prestige, I remind the House, as I pointed out in the Seanad when introducing the Bill, that in Ireland we succeeded earlier this year in averting a serious oil spill. The handling of the spill has been used as a model for other countries of how to react to such a disaster quickly and in a co-ordinated way. An incident occurred on 28 January 2002 off the coast of Donegal involving a 22 year old single hull Panamanian registered tanker, the Princess Eva, which had a potential for pollution similar to the Prestige or the Erika. The vessel was carrying 55,000 tonnes of heavy oil from Copenhagen to the United States. On 28 January 2003, the vessel experienced very heavy weather off the north west coast of Ireland. Following an accident on board in which two crew members were killed and another seriously injured, the vessel entered Donegal Bay where the two bodies were transferred to shore. An oil spill was averted due to the actions taken by the Irish Coast Guard and the maritime safety directorate of my Department.

Events such as these serve as a reminder of the vulnerability of our coastline. Ireland has, accordingly, consistently supported measures at EU and IMO level to bring about improvements in ship standards, better protection for the marine environment and adequate compensation for victims. I propose to continue with this approach. These events have also focused my attention on the provision of safety services. I am satisfied that the establishment of a single agency responsible for all safety matters is the best course of action. I intend to submit proposals to Government for decision in this regard as soon as possible. This matter is at present being discussed with trade unions and staff representatives with a view to resolving industrial relations issues which arise and charting the way forward for the development of marine safety services. I look forward to debating the legislation required with Members of the Oireachtas in due course.

This Bill, together with other measures which have been introduced or proposed, underlines the Government's commitment to ensuring that our legislation complies with accepted EU and international standards while addressing specific Irish concerns. This commitment is further underlined by the urgency accorded to this measure. It requires to be enacted by 1 November 2003, the date on which the increased limits come into effect internationally. It is in the interest of both the contributors and potential victims that this deadline be met. In the event of an incident off our coast, the increased limits would only apply if our legislation were in line with that which applied internationally. On the other hand, if an incident occurred which affected a state whose legislation gave effect to the increased limits, Irish contributors would be required to pay towards meeting the extra costs involved.

In the circumstances, I ask the House to deal with the Bill as expeditiously as possible. I made a similar request to the Seanad and am pleased to report that Senators readily acceded to it. I look forward to hearing Deputies' contributions and have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Coveney

On the Minister's last point, he will have Fine Gael's full co-operation in trying to pass this Bill as quickly as possible to ensure that we meet the deadline set out. It would not only be embarrassing, but also extremely serious, if Ireland did not do what is necessary to comply with the rules agreed internationally. However, the House is due an explanation as to why we have waited until now to deal with the Bill and why we are rushing it through in one week. The plan, as I understand it, is to complete Second Stage by 1.30 p.m. tomorrow and to take Committee Stage on Thursday. Therefore, we are expected to have our Committee Stage amendments ready at more or less the same time as we conclude the Second Stage debate. It is appropriate to express concern over the timetable outlined by the Minister. However, the Bill is of such importance that no party in the House would actually try to stop what is being attempted by the Minister and all are eager that the legislation be enacted in time.

I am concerned about the number of changes that have been made to the Bill since its initiation in the Seanad. It has more or less doubled in size, from five sections to 12. The House is due an explanation in this respect.

Mr. Broughan

That is not as many changes as he made to the last Bill. The Minister has improved.

Mr. Coveney

We were assured during the passage of the last Bill, when we had to accept entirely new sections on Committee Stage, that this would not happen with a subsequent Bill. I presume there is a fairly simple explanation. For example, there is a welcome new section regarding the introduction of an extra fund. It is not unreasonable to express some concern at the changes, even though they are relatively self-explanatory.

The purpose of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill is to increase the limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution resulting in spills from oil tankers at sea. As we know, compensation for oil pollution of the sea is payable in accordance with the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992. The Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Acts of 1988 to 1998 give effect to these conventions. However, as the Minister pointed out, following the Erika disaster, in which a Maltese-registered tanker broke up in the Bay of Biscay off the coast of France in December 1999, compensation limits were re-examined, and rightly so. Agreement was reached at the International Maritime Organisation in 2000 to increase the limits of compensation substantially by 50% for boat owners' liability and in respect of liability payable through the international fund. This fund, as has been outlined, is contributed to by all nations that import and export oil resources. A new section was added to the Bill regarding a supplementary fund of €1 billion.

The purpose of the Bill is relatively straightforward. The manner in which it is being taken is of some concern but, as I said, the Minister will have our full co-operation in terms of dealing with it by the end of the week in order that we do not leave ourselves in the embarrassing and potentially dangerous position of not being covered under international legislation.

On our level of preparedness for oil spillages at sea, we as a sovereign country have 11% of EU waters under our responsibility and there is a significant amount of traffic travelling through these waters on a daily basis. Many of the vessels concerned are not monitored as closely as they should be and this needs to be addressed.

Consider the Prestige disaster that occurred off the coast of Galicia in Spain. I was lucky enough to have been afforded the opportunity to look at the clean-up operation some months ago. We can learn from many of the concerns that were raised in the aftermath of the clean-up operation, which, I am glad to say, is more or less complete. The first was that there was no real emergency plan to deal with the break-up of the tanker, which is highly surprising considering that this was not the first time a tanker broke up off the coast of Spain. As a result of the lack of a plan, there was a lack of co-ordination and indecision during the period of stress and break-up of the tanker. Nothing was done for about four days and no decision was taken on where the tanker should be towed or how it should be dealt with. As a result, it broke up with very few protections in place and with an insufficiently co-ordinated response. Another startling fact I heard was that it took some days before a vessel capable of towing the Prestige could reach the site at all.

How does Ireland compare to Spain? I am glad that we certainly seem to have a plan of action to cope with a similar incident. The Minister rightly referred to the Princess Eva example of January 2002, in which this very significant tanker, carrying 55,000 tonnes of heavy oil, got into difficulty. The problem was brought under control in a very organised and co-ordinated way, thanks to the Maritime Safety Directorate. This is a good example of how we can deal with an issue and, through proper planning, prevent a potential tragedy in a relatively short time.

We should not, however, be quick to pat ourselves on the back and assume we do not have any difficulties in this area. I have raised in the House on a number of occasions the fact that Ireland requires a tug or towing vessel with the capacity to tow or detain a large oil tanker should it get into difficulty. We do not have such a vessel. Although our new research vessel, the Celtic Explorer, has a certain amount of towing capacity, it is not nearly sufficient to tow an oil tanker the size of the Princess Eva, the Prestige or any of the other larger oil tankers which regularly and quietly pass along our coastline. I appeal to the Government and the Minister to invest in a tug or towing vessel with the capacity to tow or detain a large oil tanker which finds itself in difficulty off our coast, particularly the west coast which is a rough section of ocean.

The Minister raised the issue of single-skin tankers. We are not sufficiently active or aggressive in expressing to the European Maritime Safety Agency our concern about such tankers. While I accept that we, with many other European Union member states, successfully lobbied to reduce the period for phasing out single-skin tankers, we must aggressively continue to try to reduce this period. Single-skin oil tankers are an outdated technology and must be replaced as soon as possible. In the meantime, we should lobby hard to ensure such vessels do not pass within a reasonable distance of our coastline or that of the rest of Europe. Spain, Portugal, France, Britain and Ireland have all expressed a desire to ensure such tankers are required to keep a minimum distance from land while carrying toxic substances or oil along the EU coastline. What progress is being made in that lobbying exercise?

I understand the need for tankers to travel along the route of the European coast when making the journey from Africa to northern Europe. Given that many of them are difficult to monitor and are single-skin, however, our primary concern must be to protect our greatest natural resource, namely, our coastline and surrounding seas. We have not pressed this argument sufficiently.

As regards the monitoring of our coast and ship inspections in ports, the Minister and his officials will be aware that the authorities in the EU were, until recently, expressing serious concern about the level of inspections of commercial shipping vessels taking place in our ports. While the figures have improved in the past 18 months or thereabouts, as an island nation we should be at the top of the list, rather than in the bottom half, in terms of the number of inspections of commercial shipping vessels European countries carry out in their ports. It is not good enough to meet the minimum standards laid down by the European Union and it would be unacceptable if a significant oil spillage occurred off our coast from a ship which had left one of our ports.

With regard to the monitoring of activity in the waters around the coast, I understand some 140,000 square miles of water are under our sovereign control. I doubt whether our Naval Service and Air Corps have the capacity to monitor effectively activity in such a vast area, while at the same time monitoring fishing activity, possible drugs smuggling, oil slicks, dumping at sea, the flushing out of waste material from the tanks of ships and so forth. We need to re-evaluate our capacity to monitor what is happening around our coast.

Given that it is virtually impossible to have a sufficient number of ships to monitor such a large area, we must place greater emphasis on the Air Corps. The Department should, therefore, discuss the potential for improving the service with the Department of Defence. Will the Minister provide the figures on the coverage of our waters the Air Corps achieves on a weekly and monthly basis?

Do we have a reporting mechanism for oil slicks and, if so, how many have been reported in the past 12 months? I suspect no such formalised mechanism is in place. We should consider introducing an incentive scheme, notably for fishing vessels but also for other commercial ships, to report oil slicks and the dumping of waste at sea to the authorities.

On a number of occasions in the past year, legislation has been introduced to try to increase our state of preparedness for a major accident at sea, such as the spillage of oil or hazardous and noxious substances and other types of pollution or dumping at sea. This concentration on legislation to enforce the law on pollution at sea, while welcome, is long overdue. If we are honest, we will admit that most of it has been to comply with the requirements of either European Union or international law. I suggest that the next time we are required to introduce legislation within a specified timeframe, we do not leave it until the last minute, as has been the case on this occasion. Having said that, the Minister will have the full co-operation of the Fine Gael Party in ensuring we pass this Bill before the end of the week.

Mr. Broughan

Before I address the Bill, I wish to make two important points. The Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is sitting right now while the House is discussing this important Bill. The Bill has to be dealt with quickly. It is strange that we always seem to end up having to pass Bills from this Department within weeks of a deadline.

The committee that oversees the Department is meeting today to discuss the price of mobile phones, another important issue. I ask the Chair to liaise with the clerk of that committee, Mr. Lenihan, to try to ensure that this type of clash does not happen again. It is most unfair to the Opposition spokespersons. We have a deep interest in both issues but we do not have the gift of bilocation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Chair but for the Whips and the committees.

Mr. Broughan

The legislation was tabled in such a way as to allow the committee to do its business. If that is the case, it is a matter for the support staff to work together to ensure these clashes do not occur. I accept the Chair's point. I am one of the Labour Party Whips and I will take the matter up at that level as well.

I also regret that the Chair did not give Deputies an opportunity to discuss what is probably the most important issue in the marine portfolio, the decision made in Brussels yesterday on the Irish box. Thirty six hours later, the Dáil has had no input to this issue. My request for an Adjournment debate on the matter was also turned down. The Minister spun a particular line and appeared to have the support of some of the fishing representatives, but grave issues arise as a result of the decision to reduce the Irish box by up to 70% in size under an agreement that will only last until December 2008. There are grave issues for the future of the marine and fishing industry in this country and it is deplorable that we were not allowed to discuss them. When I spoke to fishing representatives—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his point. He must discuss the Bill before the House.

Mr. Broughan

I will address the Bill but there are outstanding issues about the implementation rules, the level of fishing inside and outside the new box and the future of Ireland's eastern fishermen, whom I represent, and fishermen in the north west. The House should have had an opportunity to discuss them and I regret that the Chair did not permit it today.

I understand the Minister's desire to have the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill passed as quickly as possible. I welcome the Bill and I thank the staff from the Department who gave me a fine briefing on the legislation. The basic issues addressed by the Bill are a 50% increase in the level of compensation and the establishment of the supplementary fund. These are important initiatives which were taken internationally and which this country needs to be part of and support. The Labour Party has put forward a small, technical amendment with regard to section 4(a). We would prefer that the European regulations referred to were amended directly, rather than in general terms. However, that can be discussed on Thursday.

This Bill was an important opportunity for the Minister to address the grave danger to our coastlines and seas, a vast area that is ten times the size of our land mass and of which this nation is the sovereign representative, posed by the continued use of single hulled tankers. Since the 1970s these ships have been involved in a litany of disasters in which bad weather or some type of accident to the hull resulted in disastrous spillages and pollution.

The Minister says we will work with the EU to take action on this issue and that as time passes, this will cease to be a problem. However, it is only a short time since the Prestige wreaked havoc on the northern Spanish coast and destroyed hundreds of kilometres of coastline. That ship had apparently been for sale on the Internet for £500,000. It was registered under a flag of convenience and eventually caused disaster off the Spanish coast. There is an opportunity now, by amending this Bill, to ban single hulled tankers from our waters. The Minister should take the initiative and not wait for his EU colleagues, as he did yesterday. He should take the lead and use this legislation to do so.

Mr. D. Ahern

I thought the Deputy would be at Mountjoy.

Mr. Broughan

Approximately 70% of the oil supplies for Europe pass through our waters. The Minister has an opportunity, as the representative of a country with one of the biggest marine areas in the European Union, to take the lead. Perhaps he would consider making a major amendment to the Bill. He should look to the courage the Minister for Health and Children has shown in relation to smoking and ban single hulled tankers from our waters. This is an opportunity to make a major impact in this regard.

I welcome the Bill. For the last four or five decades and since the modern global economy has evolved, there have been increasing problems with oil pollution. The most conservative estimate is that about 0.25% of all oil production ends up in the sea. Other estimates calculate that 1% of oil production ends up directly polluting our oceans. Figures range from between six and seven million tonnes of oil per annum to an astonishing 20 million tonnes per annum for the amount of oil that is deliberately or accidentally offloaded from the 6,500 tankers which ply the oceans.

This is an important Bill. The work being done by the convention in London, for which this House legislated in 1988 and 1998, is important in protecting our fragile ecosystem, of which the oceans are the largest part. We need ongoing studies on the anthropogenic impact of oil pollution from all sources, including the run-offs from petrol stations and petroleum based industrial installations on land as well as tankers. There has been a litany of disastrous oil spills over the years and we must keep this issue under close surveillance. I hope this Bill will have an important role in that regard.

Like the Minister, I congratulate everybody involved in managing the disaster with the Princess Eva earlier this year, including the coastguard, Donegal County Council and inspectors of the marine safety directorate who acted swiftly to deal with that ship and its cargo of nearly 54,000 tonnes of gas oil. The Minister told me some time ago that the operation cost our agencies in the region of €190,000. I hope that it was all recovered from the perpetrators together with all other outstanding costs, under this or other legislation.

At any one time there are five or six major oil tankers ploughing through our seas. When one looks back at the record of disasters such as the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989, the American Trader off California in February 1990, the Braer off Scotland in January 1993 and the Jessica in the Pacific in January 2001, in which hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil ended up in the marine environment, one realises that we must make the most strenuous efforts to try to cope with any eventualities that may arise. In recent times there have been shocks other than the Princess Eva around our own coastline. My own constituency was recently damaged by 200 tonnes of diesel gas from the MV Blackrock in Dublin Port. We ended up with an oil slick along Sutton beach and Dublin Bay. There have been other similar but smaller disasters in Galway and elsewhere. The Minister must clearly take responsibility for this area.

A study of the incredible disaster involving the Prestige off the coast of Galicia in northern Spain clearly shows that the regional government of Galicia and the Spanish Government were completely unprepared for a major disaster of that type. Our marine journalists and people in this House asked at the time whether Ireland was any better prepared. The current Minister's predecessor, Deputy Fahey, promised us that we would have a major tug for use in such emergencies. The Minister referred to it when he went to Scandinavia to welcome the Celtic Explorer. However, as far as I know, neither the commitment from the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, nor that of the current Minister, Deputy Ahern, has been met in that regard. It is clearly a key element in attempting to deal with oil pollution emergencies and has not been addressed. We are told that the LE Eithne and various other boats have a towing capacity, but that is certainly not sufficient to deal with a disaster of the type caused by the Prestige.When the Minister was appointed, and when I accepted this portfolio from the Labour Party, I was struck by the fact that France and Ireland were being threatened with court action over our failure to carry out sufficient import inspections. I commend the Minister for increasing the number of marine surveyors and bringing the percentage of inspections up over 25%. I note that Norway has a 35% rate. If one enters a Norwegian port, one seems to have a one in three chance of being closely examined. Perhaps the Minister could continue that welcome improvement.

In addition to the famous tug, the Minister promised us a coastal protection strategy study around the first time that I asked questions on this area. I am not quite sure what has happened in this regard. The Minister promised that within two years he would have a strategy for all areas of our coastline. However, he failed over that time, just as his predecessor did. The long dark night of the soul that we are enduring with this Government is now in its seventh year. It seems like it has been here for ever. The Minister has completely refused to introduce the coastal zone management Bill. Every time a session starts and we receive lists of legislation, the coastal zone management Bill is always scheduled for the following term. A rainbow Government would address this if it were to get an opportunity.

Regarding the Bantry Bay charter, it is deplorable that where a group of local representatives, including fishing interests and yachtsmen, got together to produce a very important initiative in Bantry Bay on the edge of the Beara Peninsula in West Cork, the Minister allowed it to die. I cannot see why he could not have kept it going as a model for our entire coastline, so that we might also have had a charter for Dublin Bay in my constituency, Baldoyle Bay and so on.

One of the key issues which has recently arisen regarding the condition of workers is that of flags of convenience. During the Minister's tenure, which is now well into its second year, is there any way in which he and his international colleagues might address that very unsavoury practice, which concerns working conditions and wages at sea? It is also a significant cause of the mayhem that has gone on regarding the pollution of our waters by oil.

One of the most deplorable aspects of the safety of our coastline, on which this Minister has made a regrettable decision, relates to Dublin Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre. In recent weeks we heard the appalling news that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, proposes to close down the centre. Our marine rescue co-ordination centre just a few streets away, along with those at Malin Head in Donegal and Valentia in Kerry, provided a 24-7 system for monitoring our coastline and co-ordinating marine emergencies all around the country. A key advantage of the Dublin location is that a senior coastguard and Department managers are based at the same location in Leeson Lane. I stood here four or five months ago after a report calling for the closure of the Malin station, which would have been a deplorable act, something which would also have been true of closing Valentia. The question of why we cannot have three centres remains to be answered.

The Minister hails from the east coast. It was put to me that closing the centre was like moving air traffic control from Dublin Airport to Shannon. Having aeroplanes landing in Dublin con trolled by radio from Shannon would clearly be crazy. However, that is what the Minister proposes for the Dublin Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre. I understand that 17 or 18 staff members are involved. Given that the Irish Sea is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world, with over 80,000 passengers and crew at sea during recent holiday weekends and huge movements of freight, including dangerous cargoes of oil and gas, I urge the Minister to re-examine his decision. I want all three centres to be retained. It has been said that in an ideal world, we would have one east coast centre and one west coast centre. However, given the shape of our island, it is perhaps desirable to have three centres in a sort of triangle arrangement. In the event of an emergency such as that caused by the Prestige off northern Spain, I find it hard to believe that the response from marine rescue, the fire brigade, ambulances, Garda and coastguards could be completely co-ordinated from two remote ends of our country.

I stood up to defend Malin, and I continue to defend it and Valentia. It is incredible that the Minister wishes to proceed with the closure. If the Minister is interested in marine safety, which is the ultimate concern of this Bill, perhaps he will revisit his decision to close the Dublin Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre. Otherwise, we may unfortunately have to raise the matter again in the coming days and weeks.

There may be an opportunity, before Thursday, for the Minister to take a really important initiative such as that taken by his colleague in the Department of Health and Children. The Minister is used to employing Bills as vehicles to introduce policy. When he was at the then Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, he used various innocuous social welfare Bills as vehicles to introduce policies which were not related to the Bills' content. He has taken similar action since he took up his new portfolio. Perhaps he could take this opportunity to make this an even more significant Bill.

With that caveat, on behalf of the Labour Party, I warmly welcome the Bill.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to share time with Deputies Eamon Ryan and Morgan.

I welcome the Bill, the purpose of which is to increase the limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution resulting from spills of oil from tankers. This legislation will be extremely important for our economy, particularly in light of the exposed nature of our coastline and the virtual inevitability of vessels running aground in difficult weather conditions. Everyone will recall the recent disaster off the Spanish coastline when a tanker ran aground and caused major difficulties. People will have seen pictures of the damage to sea life, seabirds and the Spanish economy. The impact of this disaster will be felt for many years, particularly by those who inhabit that part of the Spanish coastline.

The bulk of all oil pollution at sea results from routine operations such as discharges from tankers. These are the type of matters we will have to address. Members will recall the catastrophic effects of the grounding of the tanker Torrey Canyon in the English Channel in 1967, which resulted in a spill of 95,000 tonnes of oil and caused heavy pollution on both the French and English coastlines with serious ecological and fishery consequences. Other major disasters involving tankers include that involving the Amoco Cadiz in 1989, in which 40,000 tonnes of oil were spilled, and the stranding of the Braer in 1993, which resulted in a spill of 85,000 tonnes. Such accidents will recur and it is important to consider how we will deal with them and how we will compensate the people affected by them. There are many vessels at sea which are not actually seaworthy and there is no way that Ireland can protect its interests by being involved in carrying out the number of inspections required in respect of such craft.

In each of the episodes to which I refer, the level of oil pollution reached lethal limits for marine fauna – mainly birds and mammals. The damage caused was much greater than mere ecological disturbance in the sea and on the shore. It must be remembered that half of the world's extracted crude oil is transported by sea on supertankers. Each journey involving a supertanker carries its own level of risk. I accept that a large number proceed on their journeys unscathed, but we must recognise the level of risk involved.

The escape of oil during shipping largely occurs during routine tank cleaning. During this process, oil is deliberately released into the sea. This practice is only illegal in certain areas and for vessels over a certain weight, namely, 400 tonnes. We should reduce this level of tonnage because any level of spill or discharge by a vessel causes pollution.

When tanker accidents occur, the visual effect is evident. The impact of oil spills on the marine environment depends on the importance of an area as a breeding or feeding ground, on the season and on oceanographic conditions. One of the most dramatic accidents occurred in 1989 in the shallow waters of Prince William Sound near Alaska. In this instance, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled more than 40,000 tonnes of crude oil. As the oil spread along the coastline, it covered sea animals, birds and plants. It turned literally hundreds of miles of this coastline, unique for its cleanliness and biological resources, into an area of ecological disaster.

Commercially harvested fish and shellfish that are contaminated with oil have a tainted flavour and are responsible for an increased level of skin lesions. An accident such as that involving the Exxon Valdez would have incalculable consequences for our shoreline, marine life and marine ecology. The main provision in the Bill is the increase in the level of compensation payable by 50%. I trust that the people of Pollathomas, County Mayo, which I visited yesterday with my colleagues on the Independent benches, will be able to benefit from the same type of compensation. The people in that area feel they have been forgotten by central Government. They are being dealt with, at some level, by the county council in Mayo and also by the Office of Public Works. However, they are concerned that they are being passed from agency to agency without the funding necessary to alleviate their difficulties being provided and they are beginning to feel distressed. The Government should give urgent consideration to this matter.

I am satisfied that the Bill seeks to prevent oil pollution disasters occurring near our shores. It will ensure that any victims of major oil pollution will have recourse to compensation. When we talk about victims, we usually refer to people and businesses. However, we must remember the real victims, namely, sea life and seabirds. Sea life is most immediately affected by oil spills. Seabirds become smothered in oil and are unable to fly. In attempting to clean themselves, these creatures ingest the oil and are poisoned. Some species are attracted to the shiny surface resulting from an oil slick and try to dive into the sea. Approximately 60% of birds and other wildlife washed up on our shores die as a result of oil spillages. However, they are not always washed up on the shoreline and there are many oil spillages of which we remain unaware.

In addition to this Bill, the House is also dealing with the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill. Maritime matters are of great concern to Ireland, as an island nation. We must protect our coastline, which is a major part of our tourism industry. It is all very well passing laws in respect of dumping at sea, oil pollution, etc. but we must up the ante to a large extent in terms of enforcing such legislation. No one denies that the latter will require the provision of a high level of resources. It is difficult, given that these laws are not already in place, for the authorities to inspect ships near our coastline.

For many years, people felt that it was acceptable to dump at sea. A culture built up that if one was not caught in the act of dumping, it would do not one any harm. However, such behaviour has a way of coming back to haunt people. The difficulty now is that, because this practice has been established, it will cost money for those involved to change their way of life. In my opinion, a high level of resources and stringent policing will be required.

I compliment those responsible for the drafting of the Bill, which I unreservedly support.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I also support the Minister's action in introducing this Bill. In my opinion, there will be general support in the House to try to have it passed by 1 November in order that we can comply with the international regulations.

It is unfortunate that the Bill is being presented at this late stage, particularly as the international deadline for implementation is only two weeks away. I regret that, in a sense, we will not have enough time to give it proper consideration. I understand that the Minister intends to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage on Thursday. I can excuse him, to a certain extent, for arriving late with his homework or for perhaps having only done it on a Sunday evening, but it is regrettable that we are not rowing together – as he stated he hoped would happen – in respect of passing the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Sea Pollution (Hazardous and Noxious Substances) (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill. There is no doubt that these Bills are related. If we are intent on addressing the issue of marine safety, it would be far more sensible to take these Bills, which, in essence, are seeking to achieve the same effect, deal with them at one sitting and allow a proper debate across a range of areas involving marine safety.

It is regrettable that we are addressing this Bill separately from the hazardous and noxious substances Bill as the issues are similar. We will now have to deal separately with the protocol to the international convention on oil pollution relating to preparedness, response and co-operation. It makes no sense that we are not debating these Bills together. One of my main criticisms of the Government parties in this regard is that they have failed to bring about this basic level of co-ordination. If they had been co-ordinated, we could have gone into detail and had a proper Second Stage debate across a range of different issues. When we deal with one after the other we will not, to my mind, give them due attention or necessary time.

In regard to the detail of the Bill, I laud the role of the EU in pushing the protocol regarding the establishment of the supplementary fund. It is a good example of where the EU, acting not only as a multilateral organisation within its own right but also on a global basis, has pushed the International Maritime Organisation to improve standards and set stricter limits. Taking the step beyond EU boundaries and seeking tighter international laws is something for which the officials and the EU should be applauded.

Given the number of incidents in Europe over recent years, such a move is not surprising. There have been many accidents over the years. In my 40 short years on the planet, there seems to have been a major oil spillage in Europe every five years or so, such as the Betelgeuse incident in Brittany. I am sure Deputy O'Donovan is aware of an incident in Bantry. While it was different from some of the major incidents, it was still a major oil tanker incident in our waters. There have been many incidents in European waters. Given that the EU is such a heavily industrialised area with a large number of oil tankers moving through its waters, it is not surprising that we have concerns about the issue of compensation for oil tanker spills or damage. The increase in the fund is welcome. When one looks at the level of funds and the €120 million that was in place, clearly it would have been inadequate if we had a major incident.

The Minister said he wishes to go further and look at overall safety and later he referred to the establishment of an agency. I echo Deputy Coveney's comments – we need more than an agency. I also have concerns about the type of regulations we are passing in terms of improving marine safety. Deputy Coveney mentioned a report during a previous debate which referred to the need for an ocean-going tug on the west coast. The report, carried out in 1998 or 1999, is a seminal document and shows the almost mathematical certainty of incidents in our waters every year given the volume of merchant marine traffic and large trawlers around our coast. We can be sure, on a mathematical statistical basis, that we will have two serious marine emergency incidents involving the merchant fleet every year. This is an approximation. On the basis of this, the report concluded investment in an ocean-going tug would be worthwhile for the State and the EU. The tug possibly could come to the rescue of boats in difficulty off the south west coast of England or the northern coasts of France or Spain.

We know from recent responses what would happen if anything came to pass with the disused American merchant navy ships which are being towed from Virginia to Hartlepool in north west England. The Minister told us that if there was an incident, we would have access to tugs from the European Continent. I wonder how long it would take a tug to get from the Thames estuary, Le Havre or Brest, or wherever the Minister has contracted it to be in readiness—

Mr. Kehoe

It would be like the Luas.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Yes. Unfortunately, there would be no Red Cow roundabout for going around the Fastnet Rock a few days late.

Maritime incidents involving oil tankers can involve compensation bills of €500 million to €700 million. These bills are of such magnitude that the Department of Finance has to tell us why it will not invest the necessary money in an emergency towing vessel that might save us the €500 million bill in the first place. It is not enough for the Minister to propose agencies for us to adopt international protocols. It is important that we invest in proper marine safety infrastructure if we are serious about protecting our marine environment. Such vessels could have a dual role. They could monitor activities at sea and assist the naval and fisheries protection services. It would not be as if such a vessel would sit waiting for an accident to happen.

Another recommendation in the report is that we would apply to the International Maritime Organisation for the designation of our north west coast, a particularly sensitive area, as a no-go area for certain oil tankers. I believe that request was previously turned down by the International Maritime Organisation. The Minister indicated a similar request would be made in conjunction with European states, but he did not clarify whether this is likely to be passed. The Minister told the House the MEPC is the agency dealing with it. I was attending a committee meeting while the Minister delivered his speech. However, it is unclear whether he thinks we will or will not be successful in achieving such an exclusion zone.

I encourage the Minister to seek such a zone. In addition to environmental costs, the perception of the image of Ireland abroad would be one of the greatest costs in the event of a marine accident involving an oil tanker. There is no doubt that an oil tanker disaster on the beaches of Donegal, Connemara or west Cork would be hugely costly to this country on a symbolic level as well as on an environmental level. I encourage the Minister to clarify the status of this exclusion zone proposal.

Mr. Morgan

I welcome this Bill in the spirit in which it is intended, as a means to increase the level of compensation available to the victims of pollution from oil tankers. I am sure we all agree that if people are subjected to hardship and loss as a consequence of such an event, they ought to be adequately compensated. For this reason, I have no difficulty supporting the Bill and ensuring that it enjoys a speedy passage through the House.

However, I also feel that compensating people for wrongs done is not as effective as preventing them occurring in the first instance. I would like more done in that regard. As has been outlined by my colleague from the Green Party, I note that Ireland was one of the states to request the International Maritime Organisation to designate a significant part of European waters as a particularly sensitive sea area. This would mean that some tankers would be banned while others, including some double hulled tankers, would have to give 48 hours advance notice of their intention to cross the area. I am disappointed to learn the marine environment protection committee of the IMO rejected the request for a ban in July. However, it did leave some scope for individual states to introduce their own measures and I hope the Minister will see fit to introduce such a step.

There are also other issues which arise in regard to penalising the owners of any vessel responsible for pollution. For example, if such a vessel was in a fit state to sail out of our waters after such an incident, what steps can be taken to ensure that the owners are brought to book? Is there any procedure whereby other states that adhere to the international protocols can act on behalf of this State to ensure that such vessel owners pay adequate compensation? I seem to recall that this was declared to be the case with the legislation on the trafficking of illicit substances debated by the House in the last term, and I seek assurances that the same applies in regard to this Bill.

Another issue relates to the level of surveillance by the State of the types of vessels which carry oil around our coasts. The State is well able to carry out surveillance on terrestrial matters when it suits so I hope this can also be done at sea. Any Member who has spent any time out on the sea, as I have, will have passed rusty hulks the size of Croke Park, which look even bigger if one is sitting in a fishing boat. Even if one is on a passenger ferry, one might utter a prayer as these dirty big brutes come ever closer. Some of them look quite shaky, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the management of this situation.

One would hope that not too many of those ships are carrying oil, but of course we know from previous disasters on our own and other coasts that this is not the case. Many of the vessels which run aground or shed their loads are exactly the type of badly maintained vessels to which I have referred and are carrying oil. The State, therefore, should have more discretion in this area and be able to prevent vessels which it feels are not safe from carrying dangerous substances, including oil, in our waters.

Greater powers of inspection are required. We should also examine ways of ensuring that companies involved over a long period in the commercial trafficking of oil in our waters are operating strict standards of maintenance of vessels. This is particularly important for some of the multinationals like Shell and Marathon, which unfortunately have already demonstrated some disregard for ethical and environmentally friendly procedures.

As I said, despite my broader concerns over the pollution of our waters, this Bill is a non-contentious piece of legislation and I will be supporting its speedy passage.

Mr. O'Donovan

Like previous speakers, I welcome this timely Bill. I also compliment the Minister on his excellent work in Luxembourg this week in resolving the very contentious issue of the Irish box, which was resolved to the satisfaction of every major fishing organisation in Ireland, north, south, east and west. I will not dwell on this matter but it relates to fishing and the survival of fishermen, onshore and offshore, and the Minister did an excellent day's work in Luxembourg. That should be put on the record.

This is an excellent debate on a matter very close to my heart, as I represent Cork South-West. One hears debates on agriculture, Luas and traffic in Dublin, and there is massive interest in those matters, but we have had major oil spillages in Bantry Bay. The oil spillage of 1974 was the biggest ever to hit Ireland but nobody referred to it. I was a student at the time and worked in the area trying to make some money. There were three oil spillages from the Whiddy oil depot in the early 1970s but there was no compensation. Some of the smaller fishermen and farmers chased Gulf Oil and after four or five years they got a totally inadequate snippet of compensation.

Going around the coast, the Ranga washed up on Slea Head and was an eyesore there for years. The Bardini Reefer is semi-submerged in Berehaven Harbour and when the USS The Sullivans visited Bantry Bay recently, due to the area's links to the Sullivans killed in the Second World War, I was embarrassed that the hull of the Bardini Reefer was still sticking out of the water. We hear a lot about compensation and protocols from Europe and Ireland but whether the EU or our own Government acts, this wreck should be dismantled and removed from the important safe harbour between Bere Island and Castletownbere. It is a disgrace that it is still there.

A previous speaker mentioned the Betelgeuse disaster on Whiddy Island in which 50 lives were lost. We hear a lot now about tribunals and inquiries but the first big inquiry was set up to investigate that disaster, and rightly so, as 50 lives were lost and it was important to discover the truth. It is a fact, however, that that particular ship was turned away from another port in Europe which did not want it because it was a dangerous vessel. It was brought into Bantry Bay, broke its back and one of the greatest calamities ever to occur in Ireland was the result.

In the not too distant past, the famous Tribulus owned by Shell, entered Bantry Bay and another disaster was averted only by the quick action of tugboats and local services. Consider the damage that could have been caused to the Kenmare estuary, Bantry Bay and Garnish Island, which is one of the most wonderful tourist attractions in southern Ireland. Damage could also have been caused to the mariculture and aquaculture industries – recently published figures show that quite apart from the fishing industry, those industries are worth €550 million to the country in exports. Damage could have been caused to places like Dunmanus Bay and Roaringwater Bay, where several hundred people are employed, onshore and offshore, in the mussel, shrimp, scallop and oyster industries.

Compensation has been mentioned and it is wonderful to learn that the compensation fund is to be increased sixfold. That will compensate some fishermen and others in the community, but it could never compensate for the damage a major ecological disaster would inflict on the flora, fauna and fish life along the coastline. Many people do not consider this. I am being parochial but one could apply the same argument to Mayo, Wexford and elsewhere. The damage that could be caused is unbelievable.

In another relatively recent incident, the Kowloon Bridge, a massive ore carrier, came from South America to Bantry. It was a heap of scrap and a total wreck which entered Bantry Bay on a stormy night. Thankfully we got it out of the bay and its crew was airlifted off Mizen Head. It drifted along and had it not hit the Stag's Rock off Castletownshend, it would have ended up on Ardmore beach in Waterford. The Kowloon Bridge lies in very important herring spawning grounds off Baltimore and Castletownshend and it is an absolute disgrace that it is allowed to remain there. Unlike the Bardini Reefer, deep sea divers could be brought in to dismantle the Kowloon Bridge and remove it from our coastline. We do not want it there.

The main shipping lanes from South or Central America to Europe, for ships going up the English Channel to Holland or France, go past the Fastnet, off the south west coast of Ireland. As a consequence we have had several serious incidents in the area. Everyone talks about the Exxon Valdez and the recent incident off the Donegal coast, which was handled successfully, but it is important to reflect on our history. That history has been one of devastation and in most cases there was no compensation.

The Bardini Reefer was deliberately brought into Berehaven Harbour and abandoned for insurance reasons. It now lies semi-submerged in the harbour and that cannot be allowed to continue. The Minister should take a hands-on approach to this matter and ensure something is done about it.

I am delighted that Europe is now coming on board, as Ireland was the first country to suffer this problem and had to complain first. It is only in the last few years that Europe has woken up to the problems we are facing. There was a huge debate about the ship which got into trouble in the Bay of Biscay. Last year we saw the same problem with a vessel drifting off the coast of Spain and Portugal but the reality is that different countries, such as the country of origin of the vessel and Portugal and Spain, did not want to tackle the problem. They let it drift and eventually the ship broke up. There was widespread media coverage of that incident by CNN and Sky. However, CNN and Sky were not available when disasters occurred in Bantry Bay and elsewhere off the coast of west Cork. We should not forget those disasters.

The Minister was criticised for rushing the Bill through the House. However, this Bill was intensely debated in the Seanad. I compliment the Minister on expanding the legislation to include important measures. In accordance with the essence of parliamentary democracy, the Minister has listened to contributions and taken on board positive points, which, as a result, has strengthened the Bill. I compliment him on his foresight in this regard.

Deputy Coveney referred to the need for an ocean-going sea tug to be based here, a requirement which, speaking from the heart, I support. If such a tug vessel was based here it should be supported by EU funding and based in one of two venues, either in Bantry Bay or in the Shannon Estuary. Most of the incidents that have occurred off our coast have occurred in those areas. If shipping disasters which occurred here involving the Ranga, the Bardini Reefer, the Betelgeuse, the Tribulus or the Kowloon Bridge, to mention but a few, had happened in France, Spain or Holland ten to 15 years ago, the European Union would have moved more quickly to address this issue. It is moving gradually to address it now, but it took disasters to occur in the Bay of Biscay and off the coast of other parts of Europe before it realised the extent of the problem created by such disasters. When such disasters occurred in west Cork, off the coast of Kerry and elsewhere off the south coast, Europe did not want to know about them for many years.

To ensure the proper safety, control and policing of these vessels, it is crucial for us to have an ocean-going tug, based off the south west coast. I appeal to the Government, the European Union and our European contacts to ensure that the Kowloon Bridge and the Bardini Reefer are dismantled. They should be taken from their watery graves where they are causing damage and pose a hazard to people from Bere Island travelling to and from Castletownbere or elsewhere on the mainland. The owners of small craft have to divert out of the path of these wrecks that have been in those waters for the past decade and which will be there for another decade if we do not do something about them. Their presence is unacceptable.

Reference was also made to the Erika disaster. Were it not for recent incidents such as that disaster off the coast of mainland Europe, the legislation and protocol referred to might not have been brought forward as quickly. Their implementation is not before time and I welcome them. I also welcome that the compensation fund under the protocol has been increased by 50% from 135 million SDR to 203 million SDR. I presume the amount referred to in the compensation fund will apply to each incident at sea that occurs and that it is not a global amount that will cover a series of disasters. If a disaster occurred off the coast of Mayo, Wexford or Kerry, I presume this fund could be tapped into in respect of each such disaster.

I note that in respect of victims a 750 million SDR supplementary compensation fund will be available, which is welcome. Such a fund could assist fish farmers in Bantry Bay, Roaringwater Bay or Killary Harbour in the event of a disaster occurring, but it would never compensate for the damage such a disaster would cause to places like Garnish Island, the tourist industry and the fish farming industry in the long-term. In the short term, the fishermen would get a few bob and they would be happy for four or five years, but such a fund would not compensate for the damage that would be caused in the long term to our massively important fish exporting industry. Fishermen in our industry, whether it be from fish farms in west Cork or elsewhere, have won awards not only in Europe, but recently in America. This is an industry of which we are proud and I stated recently that BIM should retain control of it.

A main concern is the environmental impact of a shipping disaster, in respect of which no fund would fully compensate the next generation. We are obliged to protect our beautiful coastline. However, I have sad memories of the history of how we have dealt with the graveyard of vessels off the coast of west Cork during the past 20 years.

The Minister said there were three importers in the State liable for contributions to the compensation fund and that they contributed €200,000 in 2000. He referred to the ESB, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation and Aughinish Alumina near the Shannon Estuary. Our largest oil reserves are stored in the facility on Whiddy Island, currently owned by Phillips Conoco. That company is probably one of the five largest oil exploration, shipping and refinery companies. The INPC sold the facility three years ago to Tosco, an Irish American owned group. We had great hopes for that company in Bantry. It had great plans. However, it saw a financial gain to be made and it sold the facility to Phillips Conoco. The company is engaged in the regular shipment of oil to and from Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay. Some of the tanks in that facility are full. There is no crude oil stored there; some of the oil there is semi-refined and some of it is bunker oil. Is that vastly wealthy company contributing to this compensation fund? I am not being narrow-minded in asking that question. Some 40 to 50 full-time workers are employed in the installation on Whiddy Island and long may that last. That company is an important employer. If that company is not contributing to this fund, I will raise the question again as to why it is not. I stand to be corrected that it is contributing.

In regard to sea pollution and the establishment of a compensation fund, when the INPC owned the facility on Whiddy Island, a compensation fund was put in place following negotiations involving Cork County Council, the fishing industry and the semi-State company, INPC, to safeguard the then relatively infant fish farming industry, which included mussels, oysters, clams and shrimps. In the event of a disaster in the area, local fishermen would be compensated to the value of €5 million. Is that compensation fund still in place? If not, a compensation fund should be put in place in line with values in Europe in 2003. It should be index-linked and should be much greater than €5 million. That amount would be only peanuts in view of the fact that we are exporting €550 million worth of fish from that sector. This industry is of great importance and its value to the economy cannot be ignored.

I note the Protocol to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation. Are we in compliance with the provisions of that protocol? I understand there is an emergency response unit involving Cork County Council, given the history of incidents that have occurred in the Bantry Bay area. That unit should be monitored and updated. Many vessels are travelling to and from Bantry Bay and the Shannon Estuary. An emergency response unit should be put in place that would be capable of adequately responding in the event of a marine disaster or one that involved the loss of human life.

Reference was made to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage. Even though the Kowloon Bridge was a mammoth iron ore carrier, it carried many thousands of tonnes of bunker oil, which created another problem for us in the south west. The Minister mentioned the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships 2001 and the MARPOL Convention. These are very welcome. I am delighted that there is now within Europe for the first time in my memory a co-ordinated established approach to oil and sea pollution. Up to now there have been only bits and pieces of legislation. We were neglected for far too long. Now, particularly following the Erika incident and the most recent incident off the Spanish coastline, we are a European entity looking at the sea pollution problem where vessels occasionally, although hopefully less often now, carelessly discard bits and pieces overboard, which do not necessarily cause oil pollution. If one walks on some of our lovely beaches and strands on the south west coast in Kerry and Cork, one wonders from where all this rubbish comes. I have no doubt that some of it comes from the sea.

Following the Erika incident, measures have been introduced or agreed in relation to ship classification societies. That is proper and correct. It should be internationally supported. The Bardini Reefer was abandoned and scuttled in Berehaven harbour. That happened not 50 years ago but in the recent past. It should not have happened. The Minister mentioned the accelerated phasing out of single hull oil tankers. This is not before time and I welcome it. He mentioned a strengthening of port-state control measures, which is also a very important issue. The loss of the Betelgeuse cost 50 lives, six of them local men, on 8 January 1979. That vessel had been rejected in a port, possibly in Spain or Portugal, but was accepted into Ireland. This recommendation is not before time. The Minister also mentioned ship reporting arrangements. The previous speaker mentioned that in his fishing experience he saw all these vessels, which I too have seen, passing our coastline. That situation, thankfully, has improved.

I welcome this important legislation. It completes a legislative jigsaw puzzle. One Member said that Europe is leading the way, but we are part of a larger stakeholding. It is vital to realise that historically we have unhappy memories of sea pollution, of wrecks on our coastline, and that at one stage our south west coastline was a recognised graveyard for sea wrecks. I wish the legislation a speedy passage through the House. I acknowledge the significant cross-party support it received in the House today.

Mr. Kehoe

I welcome the Bill. I am very disappointed that it must be implemented by 1 November. Deputy O'Donovan's referred to the great debate on this Bill in the Seanad and I welcome such a discussion. It is important that the Bill is implemented as soon as possible. However, I would like to know if other European parliaments have left it this late to introduce such legislation, which is of the utmost importance. I know everyone will get a chance to comment on the legislation, but I hate to see Bills rushed through the House to have them over and done with as soon as possible. Perhaps the civil servants might bring the Bill back to the Minister.

Anything to do with pollution of our seas or coastline is of the utmost importance and should be at the top of the agenda. Deputy Connolly noted earlier the importance of preventing losses of sea life on our coasts. I have pointed out on other occasions that the fishing industry is hugely important, more so than is realised by the person in the street. Only those directly involved in the industry, whether they are boat owners or fish packers, know the importance of the industry. When one considers how much fish is consumed in restaurants, the results of oil pollution in Ireland would be terrible.

We have seen oil pollution in countries such as Spain and France and on our own coastline over the years. Deputy O'Donovan spoke about the pollution in 1974 in County Cork. We see the massive clean-up operations necessary when oil pollution happens. I particularly recall the television images on Sky and CNN and other international channels. It is terrible to see oil and dead fish on coastlines.

With the appearance of the Tánaiste in the Dáil, it is great to see someone getting a 50% increase in compensation. There are not too many people getting increases under this Government. Many Deputies on this side of the House will agree.

This Bill is important in that those who suffer because of oil pollution will get increased compensation. When pollution takes place on any coastline, an instant action plan must be in place. When oil pollution occurs, time is crucial. Days and even hours can be important in saving fish life or the coastline, which is so important to us in Ireland.

Deputies O'Donovan, Coveney and Broughan spoke about the importance of a towing tug. The Department or the Minister should prepare a plan so that within the next couple of years we have a towing tug ready if there is any major oil spillage or the sinking of a ship. We may rely on countries such as France or Spain to provide such a tug, but we may have to wait for it to arrive while pollution is taking place. If we had our own tug in place, less damage might be done to our sea life.

Debate adjourned.