Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1956

Vol. 46 No. 1

Oil Pollution of the Sea Bill, 1956—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main object of this Bill is to enable effect to be given to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954. The Bill also repeals and reenacts in amended form the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1926.

During recent years, the pollution of the sea by oil has reached grave proportions for many countries. We in Ireland have fortunately not been as seriously affected as some other countries but there have been numerous instances of serious pollution of our coasts and coastal waters. The amenities at many of our seaside resorts have been affected and there has been destruction and injury of sea birds. Oil pollution is also a potential danger to fish life and the fishing industry.

The principal sources of the serious oil pollution in recent years are oil tankers and oil burning ships. Large quantities of oils are discharged into the sea by tankers when washing their tanks and disposing of oily ballast water. Dry cargo ships which use their fuel tanks for ballast water also discharge oily ballast water into the sea. Much of the oil which is so discharged, including crude oil, fuel oil, heavy, diesel oil and lubricating oil, persist in the sea for very long periods and can be carried for considerable distances by currents and winds.

Our existing legislation, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1926, deals with pollution of our territorial seas and harbours but up to now it has not been possible to take effective steps to prevent the far more serious pollution which occurs on the high seas and which is carried to our shores by winds and currents. The only hope of dealing with this problem lies in concerted international action. The League of Nations gave some attention to the proposal before the war but no effective international agreement was reached. The shipowners of a number of countries, including Ireland, have for many years past, however, voluntarily recognised a limit of 50 miles from any coast within which oil would not be discharged.

Renewed consideration was given to the problem after the war, particularly by Britain, which has suffered heavily from oil pollution. With the approval of the United Nations, the British Government convened a conference in London in April, 1954, which was attended by representatives of 42 countries, including Ireland, and which represented between them about 95 per cent. of the world's shipping. The conference approved of a convention entitled The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, together with eight resolutions. The convention has already been presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas and has been published by the Stationery Office.

One of the resolutions adapted by the conference recognised that the only entirely effective method known of preventing oil pollution is complete avoidance of the discharge of persistent oils into the sea. The conference was unable to reach agreement on such a total prohibition, but recommended that a further conference be held to review the matter within three years and resolved that in the meantime Governments and other bodies concerned should endeavour to create the conditions in which such a complete prohibition of discharge could be brought about. The measures which were agreed by the conference, and embodied in the convention, do represent, however, a substantial advance towards eradicating oil pollution.

The discharge of persistent oils into the sea by tankers and dry cargo vessels of over 500 tons within certain prescribed zones will be prohibited under the convention. These zones extend generally for 50 miles from any country but certain larger zones are also prescribed. These larger zones include the areas from which persistent oils discharged from vessels are most likely to reach the shore; the Atlantic zone with which we are principally concerned extends about 700 miles westward from this country for tankers and 100 miles westward for dry cargo vessels. The convention also provides for the fitting of equipment to ships for preventing the discharge of oil into the sea and for the provision in main ports of adequate reception facilities for oily residue from vessels other than tankers. Reception facilities for oily residues from tankers would normally fall to be provided at the loading ports. The convention lays down forms of records relating to oil operations which must be kept on board all ships covered by the convention and will be open to inspection by the competent authorities of contracting parties.

The convention was signed by 20 countries, including Ireland, subject to acceptance. The convention will not come into operation internationally until 12 months after 10 countries have accepted it, of whom five must be countries with not less than 500,000 tons gross of tanker tonnage. The enactment of this Bill will enable the Government to accept the convention on behalf of Ireland. I understand that Britain has enacted legislation to enable effect to be given to the convention and that Canada, West Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, Denmark and the Netherlands are also taking action to implement the convention. I might mention that Britain, France, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have each more than 500,000 tons gross of tanker tonnage.

The shipping industry in this country has always given the fullest co-operation in any steps necessary to combat oil pollution. They have for a number of years voluntarily observed a 50-mile limit from any coast within which oil is not discharged from their ships. Subsequent to the drawing up of the London Convention in 1954, Irish ship-owners agreed to give immediate effect on a voluntary basis to its provisions providing for the prohibition of oily discharge in prohibited zones and to the keeping of records of oil operations on board ship. All Irish deep sea vessels are already fitted with oily water separators and all but a few of our home trade vessels are fitted either with separators or with oil fuel bilges which enable them to avoid or reduce oil discharges into the sea.

The convention places an obligation on each convention country to secure that adequate reception facilities will be provided at main ports. It is, however, left to each contracting country to determine which are its main ports for this purpose. The conference at which the convention was drawn up felt that only ports dealing with a very substantial shipping tonnage need be regarded as main ports. It seems probable that Dublin is the only port with which we are likely to be concerned at least for some time to come. Certain reception facilities are already provided by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. There have been discussions between the Department and the board and no difficulty is foreseen in meeting the requirements of the convention.

I should point out that the port authorities are being empowered in the Bill to make reasonable charges for providing reception facilities and the service should, therefore, be largely, if not wholly, self-supporting.

It will be seen, therefore, that while Ireland suffers comparatively severely from oil pollution, we are ourselves not responsible for causing pollution. Furthermore, compliance with the provisions of the convention will involve no great difficulty for our ship-owners. It is, therefore, clearly in our interests that this convention and any subsequent convention which may approach even nearer to the ideal of prohibiting all discharges of oil into the sea should be brought into effect at an early date with the widest possible degree of international co-operation.

The convention is limited to vessels over 500 gross tons. A resolution adopted by the London Conference, however, urged Governments to apply the provisions of the convention so far as may be reasonable and practicable, to all classes of sea-going ships registered in their territories including vessels under 500 tons. For this reason it is considered desirable that the Bill should be applicable to vessels under 500 tons also. Provision is made in the Bill, however, for the exemption of any vessel or class of vessels from any of its provisions. The classes of vessels which may be exempted either permanently or for the time being from any of the provisions of the Bill will be determined in consultation with the interests concerned and it may be taken that no owner, particularly of small vessels, will be asked to comply with any unreasonable requirement.

The convention may not come into operation internationally for some years, but it is proposed to bring a number of the provisions in the Bill into operation as soon as may be practicable. Thus the initial zones which are provided for in the Schedule to the Bill and which are those protecting the Irish coast will be brought into operation as soon as possible. Irish ship-owners may not, however, be asked to observe the additional zones provided for in the Schedule to this Bill until the convention comes into operation internationally or at least until the other countries affected by such zones have accepted the convention. It would not be reasonable to interfere with the freedom of action of Irish vessels in the sole interest of other parties unless they were prepared to reciprocate.

Those provisions of the Bill prohibiting the discharge of oil in prohibited zones, requiring the fitting of certain equipment and prescribing the keeping of records will apply in the ordinary course only to Irish vessels. It will be for other countries accepting the convention to apply similiar provisions to their vessels. The Bill does provide, however, that the Government may apply the provisions for the keeping of records and the fitting of equipment to non-Irish vessels also while they are within Irish territorial waters. These powers might be used in agreement with the other parties to the convention after it came into operation generally so as to impose compliance with its provisions within their territorial waters on the vessels of States which had not accepted the convention. The provisions of the Bill regarding the prevention of pollution within our territorial waters apply, of course, to all vessels of whatever nationality.

It will be seen that there are fairly wide powers in the Bill in regard to the making of rules and regulations. The Bill is, primarily, an enabling Bill. This is unavoidable because the requirements are mainly of a technical nature, which may require amendment from time to time in the light of experience, and it would be impracticable to deal with them in detail in the Bill. Furthermore, it is the intention to introduce the provisions of the Bill into operation gradually and the House would not, I am sure, wish to deal with the problem in a piecemeal fashion. Every Order, rule or regulation will, however, be laid before each House and a resolution may be passed annulling it. Shipping interests may rest assured that before any rules are made, whether they relate to requirements which go beyond the convention or not, there will be fullest consultation with them.

Enactment of this Bill will enable the Government to accept the 1954 convention and, therefore, help to bring it into operation at an early date. The Bill will place no undue burden on shipowners, harbour authorities, or the Exchequer and I have every confidence that the measure will meet with the general approval of the House.

Níl mórán le rá agam ar an mBille seo ach fáilte do chur roimis, agus tá súil agam go gcólíonfar na rudaí atá ráite ag an Rúnaí Pairliminte chun ola thrualliú na fairrge do chosaint. Rud 'seadh é atá ag déanamh díoghbhála, agus an-chuid díoghbhála, le roinnt blianta anuas.

I have not very much to say on this Bill, except to welcome it. I sincerely hope that the objects that are set out in this convention will be achieved, because everybody knows that any amount of damage has been done, and is being done, around our coast by the practice of pollution of the seas. It has been causing danger to our bathing facilities, to the fishing industry, and so on.

There are just one or two questions that I should like to ask in connection with the Bill. I wonder if those nations who signed the convention gave consideration to the question of what could be done with the oil that is being thrown into the sea—whether it could not be conserved and utilised for any industrial purpose. I do not know whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to answer that question offhand.

Another question I should like to ask is: Could one find out what method will be adopted to ensure that the obligations of the nations who have contributed to this convention will be carried out? What kind of policing will be carried out on the high seas to ensure that the objects set forth will be fulfilled?

Lastly, I do not remember at the moment how many nations signed this convention. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many nations have subscribed to this policy of the prevention of pollution of the sea around the coasts of the various countries and have subscribed to the convention?

The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary commends itself to everyone of us, for many reasons. This is an international matter affecting Ireland as well as any other country in the world. It is a matter of very serious gravity to this country and one in which we are particularly interested at the moment. Coming, as I do, from one of the premier seaside resorts in the south, I should like to express approval of this matter and the sooner it becomes international law—as it is an international matter—the better.

The Parliamentary Secretary has covered the ground, or perhaps I should say that he has covered the sea, very well. He put before us the very great necessity for implementing the findings of this convention. As times change, the methods of driving steamers and liners change, too. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, oceangoing liners were driven by coal. Colliers going to various places like Cork, Youghal, Dublin and elsewhere, were also driven by coal—steam. Within the past ten or 15 years, a switchover to oil has taken place and the dumping of that oil in the sea has caused very serious trouble and worry to many people whose livelihood depends on their earnings at various seaside resorts throughout the country.

Something must have been done to combat this matter last summer, but two years ago the whole of the southern coast of Ireland from West Kerry to Wexford was one mass of congealed adhesive tar. I have had an unhappy experience myself in that regard. If, on your half-day on a Wednesday afternoon, you went from my town to Ardmore or Ballycotton for a swim, and a sunbathe afterwards, you found chunks of tar clinging to your clothes. It is a very serious matter. Many people have wondered how it could be solved.

On numerous occasions, I have had the distressing experience of seeing the wings of sea birds stuck together, so that they were unable to move. To those of us who are lovers of nature, that is a horrifying spectacle. I have seen seagulls and various other birds at the coast and they could do absolutely nothing.

This international action is not confined to the shores of Ireland and I am glad of that. What I want to find out from the Parliamentary Secretary is whether or not it is possible at this early stage to state the remedy for getting rid of this oil dumped from ocean-going liners and various other vessels that traverse our seas. I live along one of the main Atlantic routes. Liners from Liverpool pass Youghal on their way to stop at Cobh, before continuing to America. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that it is punishable to dump this material overboard within 50 miles of any coast. I do not think that 50 miles is enough. We all know that a strong south-westerly gale travels at least 50 or 60 miles per hour. If this material is dumped 50 miles off the south coast of Ireland and a south-westerly gale springs up, then, within an hour or two hours at the utmost, that congealed oil will be tossed up on your shore.

In my view, dumping this material in the sea will never get rid of it. If you dump it 1,000 miles out in midAtlantic, it is bound to find its way to some shore, whether it be that of Ireland, England, Scotland, France, the Spanish coast or the coast of Morocco. It is bound to get there some time.

This is a Bill on which we need not delay. It is a very important Bill and the sooner this international convention starts working and finds some remedy, the better. I wonder if it would be possible to burn that substance and have it blown overboard. I cannot see what can be done otherwise. People in the South and West of Ireland who make their living along our coast welcome this Bill. At the risk of repeating myself, may I say that two years ago, in my home town of Youghal, the whole beach could be seen to be marked with this substance after every tide. When it comes to spring tide and then when the water is going down to ebb again, you can see a crust of oil marking the whole shore for miles.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the sooner this Bill becomes effective, the better for us all. I heartily welcome the Bill. Oil pollution has done a lot of damage. It also hinders considerably a very important industry, the fishing industry along the south coast of Ireland. I know, of course, that the same thing applies to the west, north and east. The sooner the measure becomes effective and rids not only Ireland but the world of this horrible nuisance, the better. We will have done a good day's work.

I should also like to support this Bill. I merely want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if there is any scientific research going on, either in this country or internationally, on the question of the treatment of this oil waste on board vessels —something such as the application of chemicals or some very strong detergent that would dissolve the waste, or leave it in such a condition that it would be discharged in a harmless manner.

The Bill is, of course, an excellent example of international co-operation which began a great number of years ago in the League of Nations and which, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, has come to a very happy conclusion by the agreement of a great many States to certain steps which cannot be taken nationally but must be taken internationally to accomplish any improvement in the situation such as Senator O'Gorman described.

My particular interest in the matter, apart from general interest, is in connection with bird life. The oil discharged has done a considerable amount of harm to wild birds on the Irish coast. People interested in the protection of birds are naturally very pleased with this Bill and would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government upon it.

There has been a British Act passed to ratify the convention, just as we are passing this Bill here. There are a few points of difference which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary from the point of view of information. Naturally, of course, the British problem is a greater problem than ours, from the point of view of the immense difference between their tonnage in shipping and ours, but the penalty provided in their Act is much greater than the penalty provided in Section 23 of this Bill. That may be accounted for by this difference in tonnage. Neither is there in this Bill any provision for an annual report. There is provision in the British Act for an annual report. It might be interesting, but I presume it would add to the expense to have an annual report of what is happening.

Section 16 of the Bill provides for certain types of apparatus to get rid of the oil, but I would like merely some information before the Committee Stage upon these matters. I should like to say again to the people interested in bird life, which is very important to us and which, owing to our situation, is varied and rich, that as far as we are concerned the danger for birds will be very much lessened when the provisions of this Bill have been operated and the international convention has been generally adopted.

I should like to say a word or two on this Bill. I think we should welcome it for two reasons —first, for what is in it and, secondly, because it is another example of a Bill being first introduced in the Seanad. I think, if I am not wrong, it is the first of the kind in this session and I hope there will be others. I think it encourages the Seanad to make a special effort to deal with a Bill, that we have it before it goes to the Dáil.

This is very much a Committee Bill and if I may say so, it seems to be a very well drafted Bill. It deals with a very serious threat to the amenities and the life of the seacoast. I can add to what Senator O'Gorman said, my own personal testimony from my experience in County Waterford. In some years, the deposit of oil has been very serious indeed, even though it has not been as bad as in some other countries.

There are one or two questions I should like to ask on the Bill—questions of a general nature. Section 4 states that the Bill does not apply to a vessel of the Irish naval service. Might I ask just what is the reason for that? I am sure there is a good reason, but I think we ought to know it.

The other question is on Section 21. Here it is very rightly said that an inspector may not unnecessarily delay or detain a ship from proceeding on her voyage, but who is to judge whether the ship is unnecessarily delayed or detained? I should like to know if there is provision for any appeal on the part of a shipowner for compensation if he feels he has been unjustifiably detained, and if there is likely to be any redress? A ship could suffer a great deal through unreasonable detention of this kind. I should like to know if anything could be done to meet that point, if it is a valid point.

Another general question I should like to ask is this: Have we at the moment any legislation against the discharge of ship's waste other than oil and such substances as are mentioned in this Bill? I ask this question because of a personal experience I had a month ago. A large ship on which I was travelling stopped at the harbour of a small Greek Island. There was beautiful clear water when we went in; but two hours later I was appalled at the state of that little harbour. The water covered with refuse of every kind. It seems appalling that a ship should be able to do that. I hasten to add that it was not an Irish ship, and it was not in Irish waters. But I should hate that kind of thing to happen in our Irish harbours. I should like to ask if there is legislation to prevent it, and, if there is not legislation to prevent it, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider drafting legislation of that kind. I do not think any amendment could be introduced on this Bill, but I do think that something is needed to stop it, if there is a risk of it in this country.

I should like to repeat the question raised by Senator O'Gorman in regard to what happens to the oil when it is discharged 200 miles from the coast of Ireland. I want scientific information on it. Will it dissipate itself so as to be harmless, or will it simply float in a large block to the nearest port?

Of course, it does.

If it is going to float en masse, this will only mean that the spread of this oil will be slightly more generous than if it were discharged nearer port. Is any scientific research being undertaken to deal with this problem of oil discharge, to find if there is any chemical means of dissipating it? I welcome the Bill. I hope we will do justice to it. It seems to be a particularly well drafted Bill and it certainly deals with a very undesirable state of affairs.

I am very pleased that all sides in the Seanad have welcomed this Bill and I will just reply to some questions asked by different Senators. Senator Kissane inquired if there is any use being made of this oil waste, or any attempt by scientists to make use of this waste oil. There have been efforts—efforts made by scientists for some years past, and by British scientists especially, to make use of this waste oil in harbours, but so far they have not achieved any success. Of course, it would be a great thing if something of that kind could be got, as it would save harbour authorities much expense where they have sometimes to bury this sludge.

What would be done with it then?

Sometimes it has to be buried, where it is unloaded in harbours, but it would be a great advantage, if some use could be made of it, if it could be treated so as to be brought back into use again.

Could it not be destroyed completely?

That is a scientific problem which I am not able to deal with, but I am sure it will be dealt with by various countries which adhere to this convention, and which will be trying in the coming years to find that solution. As regards enforcement, the prescribed records will show if discharges have been made within the prohibited limits, and inspection will take place to see if oil separators have been fitted to various ships which come into our harbours.

They will be inspected?

Oh yes; they will be inspected in the harbours. Twenty countries have so far accepted the convention, but very few of them have ratified it by enacting the necessary legislation, as we are doing now. As regards Senator Gorman's question, it is not proposed to dump the oil in the sea. The Bill proposes that ships should have separators fitted and harbour authorities should provide recep tion facilities for the waste oil. Senator Miss Davidson mentioned much the same matter and I can say that the scientific treatment of oil waste has been examined by many countries. I understand that the delegate from Israel, a woman scientist, at the Oil Commission Conference was very keen on it, but so far no solution has been made known.

As regards Senator Hayes's inquiry on annual reports, it was thought there would be scarcely enough activity here to justify annual reports, but there will be another conference held in London within the next year or two to consider the progress made internationally and the matter may be raised then. The limits within which oil may not be discharged were settled after prolonged discussion between all the interests at international level. Measurements were taken of the movement of oil in various areas and the distances it would be expected to travel. I may point out that the zone from Ireland on the westward side is 700 miles for oil tankers, and oil from tankers causes the greatest danger to coasts, so the limit for discharge of oil in their case is 700 miles. For dry cargo ships, the limit is 100 miles, but they are not the vessels which cause most damage, but, for tankers, the limit is over 700 miles, because, when this oil is discharged, it can be caught in currents and brought to our shores. That is the idea of the limit of 700 miles—so that it will dissipate itself over the high seas. There is one question here.

Senator Stanford asked why naval vessels were not included in the Bill. Under the convention, naval vessels of any country are not included but the Minister for Defence here has agreed that the Irish naval service will comply voluntarily with the provisions of the Bill.

I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary answer this question: suppose a shipowner or captain holds that his ship has been unnecessarily delayed, is there any means of dealing with that and providing for redress?

There is no particular provision for dealing with that, but I take it any inspector we will have will deal reasonably with shipowners. He will not delay the ship in port unnecessarily, which of course would be very costly to any shipowner, but at present there is no provision in the convention to cover this matter. Changes can be made, of course, and any amendments which may appear necessary can be brought up in future at international conferences, to provide against unnecessary delays.

Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say this oil or sludge, as it is called, will be brought to ports and dumped here? Is that correct?

Because in view of the huge tonnage of ships now, I would be sorry for the ports where it would be dumped. I may have misinterpreted the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. If this stuff could be changed into powder through some process or others and exuded on to the sea, it would be better. It would be terrifically costly to bring it to the ports of the world and dump it there. Whether anything in the way of fertilisers can be got from it, I do not know, but, of course, this business is only in its infancy, in its embryo stage. The Parliamentary Secretary could possibly bring to the notice of the international conference the benefits of our little experience here. We want to be rid of this filthy nuisance which harms our seaside resorts, harms our harbours, and harms our birds.

The Senator is now engaged in making another speech.

I am making a suggestion.

Of course, if we could reduce the oil to dust, there would be no necessity for any Bill.

We are giving the Bill a dusting over now.

It is not dumped when it comes into port, but there are facilities provided by harbour authorities for removing it.

May I have a slight clarification of the Minister's answer to my earlier question? It may save putting down an unnecessary amendment, which is the last thing I want to do. I want to be quite clear. Will the Minister tell us if there is no redress for the captain or the owner of a ship who holds very firmly that he has been unnecessarily delayed. If there is no such redress, why not? There are unreasonable inspectors in all walks of life occasionally. And if the answer to this question is what I think it will be, would he consider putting into the Bill on the Government side some provision giving the sea captain and sea owner some means of appealing against unnecessary delay. I do think it is unjust: a shipowner may lose hundreds of pounds and have no redress.

How do any scientists employed by the Government deal with this matter? Have we any scientists employed dealing with it?

Any research bureau?

No, we have not. In reply to Senator Stanford, the only redress is in common law. If you can prove you have been delayed, unnecessarily and deliberately, you have the ordinary methods of obtaining redress at common law.

I take it, then, he will not be precluded from going to the courts?

Question put and agreed to.
Committe Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30th May.
Top
Share