This matter stood over from the last sitting because there was an amendment suggested, I think, by Senator Jackson. I think there were two amendments, one of which was accepted by the Minister and the other remained over to give him an opportunity of expressing his views on it. The only matter to be considered to-day is this one amendment standing in the name of Senator Jackson.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL., 1925—REPORT STAGE (RESUMED).
CATHAOIRLEACH
I beg to move:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "carrying," in line 47, down to and including the word "container" in line 50, and to substitute therefor the words "oil in bulk."
The section as it stands seems to be limited to vessels capable of carrying 25 tons or more of oil at one time. This Bill is for the purpose of preventing the pollution of waters and not to prevent oil being brought in. It seems unnecessary to mention any quantity. On the last day that this Bill was under consideration I mentioned that as much damage could be done by a vessel containing 5 tons of oil as by a vessel containing 25 tons, and I cannot understand why the application of the section should be limited to a vessel carrying 25 tons. If the amendment is inserted the sub-section will read as follows:—
This Act applies to any vessel which is capable of carrying oil in bulk and accordingly the word "vessel" shall in this Act (save where otherwise expressly stated) be construed as referring to and meaning only a vessel to which this Act applies.
I beg to second.
As the Bill stands its application under Section 2 is confined to vessels which carry over 25 tons of oil in all or more than five tons in any one space or container. The amendment will apply the section absolutely to all vessels and would differ materially from legislation in respect of this matter in other countries, notably in Great Britain. Practically all the vessels transporting oil which come here have also to enter harbours in England. The Ministry most affected here by this matter would be the Ministry of Fisheries, and they have accepted the Bill as it stands. While it might appear that a considerable amount of damage could be done by the smaller vessels, it must be borne in mind that the fishing vessels themselves are of such dimensions as to carry lesser quantities of oil, and in consequence their activities would be very seriously interfered with if this amendment, were passed into law. It is true that the letting loose of a small quantity of oil—I think six quarts would cover a square mile—is very damaging, but there are less dangers to be apprehended from fishing vessels in respect of any such loss than from other vessels. It is a material economic consideration to the fishing vessels to be careful of the supply, and the Ministry of Fisheries does not apprehend any danger or ill-effects from leaving the section as it is drawn.
In addition to that there is corresponding legislation in other countries. It would certainly be a hardship to vessels having business in harbours in Ireland and also in England to have a different set of laws appertaining in both countries on a matter of prime importance to both countries. In the circumstances I am advised that the inclusion of this amendment would not materially strengthen the object in view and would prejudicially affect the industry which every possible effort should be made, not alone to keep in as sound condition as it is at present, but to improve as much as possible.
I suppose there is no question that we might rely on the Minister for Fisheries to watch what is happening when this Bill passes and keep us informed, so that if Senator Jackson's point was right and if damage was done we would have some chance of hearing about it, because otherwise once this Bill is passed we would hear no more about it. It might be no harm if the Seanad would ask the President to ask the Minister for Fisheries to watch the matter, and if it were shown that damage was done, the question would receive attention.
I think the Senator's suggestion is a very good one. The demand for this legislation has come from many sources. The primary source is the fishing industry. There is the secondary source—the information which comes from the ports and docks and from seaside places and so on. Then there are bodies which are interested in birds' plumage. The birds' plumage is seriously affected by this peculiar film which spreads out in an almost limitless expense. Experience has shown that the danger is apprehended from those large vessels to which a few gallons of oil is as nothing, whereas in the case of the smaller vassels, they are more alive to the damage done in this way and would necessarily restrict the damaging effect upon the fish. I will bring before the notice of the Minister for Fisheries its effects upon fish, and if it be necessary to extend the operations of the Bill to the small vessels, I believe he would introduce the matter to the Oireachtas.
My amendment was not in the nature of a restriction. I cannot see how in any way it would be a restriction to do away with the tonnage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the Bill be considered on Report"—put and agreed to.