Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 1977

Vol. 86 No. 1

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

On section 8, are there any harbour authorities, such as pier authorities, operated by county councils? They do not seem to be to be provided for in this section. What happens in the case of a harbour with no effective authority?

(Cavan): I will deal with the Senator's last point first, that is, a harbour with no effective authority. The authority in that case under paragraph (d) would be the person entitled to charge rates in respect of vessels entering or using the harbour. Section 8 amends section 3 of the 1956 Act by substituting for the definition of “harbour authority” contained in that Act, the following definition:

"harbour authority" means—

(a) in the case of a harbour to which the Harbours Act, 1946 (No. 9 of 1946), applies, the harbour authority under that Act,

(b) in the case of a harbour under the control and management of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, the Commissioners,

(c) in the case of a fishery harbour centre to which the Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968 (No. 18 of 1968), applies, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries,

That type of harbour came into existence subsequent to the Act of 1956 and that is why the amendment, in paragraph (c) was necessary,

in any other case, the person entitled to charge rates in respect of vessels entering or using the harbour.

In the case of harbours controlled by county councils, if there are such— and I am assured there are—then the county council, as the person entitled to charge harbour dues or rates, would be the harbour authority.

That is clear enough.

Question put and and agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

When I mentioned small fines earlier, I knew of the fine of £100,000; but that applies where no special penalty is provided for. In this particular instance the fine is £200.

(Cavan): Under section 14 of the Act of 1956 the onus was placed on the owner or master of a vessel or on the occupier of the place to report to the harbour master any discharge of oil into the harbour. The present Bill makes the owner, master or occupier of an attending apparatus liable to report to the Minister the cause and fact of any discharge into territorial seas. A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200 as compared with a fine of £100 in the comparable provision of the 1956 Act. The extension of the requirement of the 1956 Act in relation to reporting of discharges is considered desirable to cover, for example, oil discharges at private harbours or at other private terminal facilities. The offence is for failing to report this or notify the Minister. The penalty has been increased to £200.

As Senators will appreciate when fixing penalties for summary offences one must have regard to the Constitution. If the fines are too severe, the Supreme Court takes the view that the offence ceases to be a trivial offence which can be properly dealt with in a summary manner. The case must then be tried by a judge and jury. I do not want to mislead the Seanad. I concede that fines up to £500 have been accepted by the Supreme Court as not putting the offence outside the category which can be dealt with in a summary manner. I shall have a look at that particular fine between now and the Bill coming before the Dáil. If I think it should be increased, I will introduce an amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

In section 13 the figure of £500 is used, so the Minister might think of bringing it into line.

(Cavan): I have said I am satisfied that £500 is acceptable and I will consider the matter.

It would be consistent with what is in section 13.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to make the same point again about the £200 fine in section 14. We should go to the limit to ensure that these people report any leakages or defects of any kind. I am not a lawyer, but if £500 is acceptable I would go to £500.

That would make for consistency when you have £500 in one section.

(Cavan): The fine in this case has been increased from £50 under the 1956 Act to £200 at present. I will have a look at the penalties between now and next Stage in the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

I must make the same comment again on the fine of £200.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.

If there is a disaster and considerable damage is caused to, say, an estuary or coastline, where does the liability rest for cleaning up and making good the pollution? I understand that there was an association of tanker owners who in fact accepted liability for this particular clean up but that not all tanker owners are in that organisation. If the damage was caused by a tanker owner not a member of this international body, who would then accept liability for it?

(Cavan): The Seanad will appreciate that this Bill deals with the criminal law and sets out to create offences and prescribe penalties. If the Senators will look at section 4 they will see that the provisions of section 3 of this Bill are without prejudice to the right of the Minister, or any injured party, to take action against a third party in any case where there is a maritime casualty and it appears that the maritime casualty occurred by reason of negligence or default of such third party. Section 4 clearly preserves the right of the Minister, or the harbour authority or a land owner to follow up his civil rights. As the law stands, in my opinion, the person who would be legally liable for the damage done would be the owner of the offending ship and the person suffering the loss or damage can follow the owner of the ship.

There are other conventions which deal with civil liability and I hope to be in a position to introduce further legislation this year dealing with that aspect of the matter.

In other words, the problem of recovery of costs for clean up, which presumably would not be covered by this Bill, will be covered by the further conventions being brought in. For example, if in Senator Russell's area, the Shannon estuary was polluted by a tanker from, say, Liberia, running aground, at the moment there is not much come-back. If we ratify these conventions then we will be in a position, through international law, to claim the costs of clean up from the owners of the offending vessel?

(Cavan): I cannot do better than to refer the House to my speech when I said that two further conventions—the International Convention on Civil Liability For Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the International Convention relating to the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971—deal with civil liability in cases of oil pollution damage and provide for the setting up of an international compensation fund to meet the cost of major spillages. Legislation to enable Ireland to ratify these latter conventions is at an advanced stage of preparation and I would hope to present it to the House for consideration later in the year. I am satisfied that the law as it stands at the moment is that the injured person must follow the owner of the offending ship but that when these conventions are ratified and legislation introduced the machinery which I have just described will be available.

I presume that countries like Liberia and Panama, which are countries——

I should like to point out to the Senator that this debate is out of order. Such matters may be raised on the Fifth Stage.

Bill reported without amendment.

I should like to request that we adjourn the sitting at this stage for an hour to accommodate my making certain inquiries regarding the other business to be taken by the House.

Could I ask the Minister this question because I will not be here in an hour's time? It is concerning countries like Liberia and Panama who have special attraction for ship owners because they do not apply international regulations in regard to safety factors and so on. Presumably these countries will be unlikely to ratify conventions like this?

(Cavan): I am told they have ratified. The two countries mentioned by the Senator, Liberia and Panama, have already ratified the convention.

So we will be able to get at the owner through the government of the country involved.

Business suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.

Top
Share