This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance, therefore, with Standing Order No. 75, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question that the Bill be received for final consideration, the Minister may explain the purport of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators a printed list of the amendments made by the Dáil has been circulated.
Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1976 [ Seanad Bill Amended by the Dáil ]: Report and Final Stages.
Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
, Cavan): A number of amendments were made to the Bill in the course of its passage through the Dáil and I will comment briefly on each of them.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 are of a drafting nature. On amendment No. 1, the addition of the words "risk of oil pollution" in this section is to ensure full compliance with Articles I and VI of the Convention which stipulates that any measures taken must be reasonably necessary to "prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil".
On amendment No. 2, the amendment has been suggested by the Attorney General's Office to clarify and confirm the right of a person to recover compensation from the Minister for unnecessary expense incurred as a result of compliance with a direction given by the Minister under section 2 which was afterwards held by a court to be an unreasonable direction. The amendment is in line with the provisions of Article VI of the Convention in regard to compensation rights.
Amendment No. 3 is necessary consequent on the dissolution of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries into the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries respectively and the assignation of the fishery responsibilities to the latter Department.
There are three changes involved in amendment No. 4 to section 11 (1):
(1) The addition of the words "of the place or the person in charge" after the word "occupier". This has been deemed necessary to correct a minor drafting error.
(2) The use of the words "owner and master" ensures that the obligation to report a discharge is placed on both the owner and the master of the vessel. The Attorney General has advised that the use of the words "owner or master" would mean that prosecutions for failure to report a discharge would almost certainly fail as there would be no definite legal obligation on either the owner or the master to make the report.
(3) The words "in the prescribed manner" are inserted instead of "in such manner as the Minister may by order direct". This change has been suggested by the Attorney General on the grounds that the subsection as originally drafted could leave it open to a person charged under the section to plead that he was awaiting a direction from the Minister before reporting the discharge. The term "in the prescribed manner" excludes this possibility and clearly confers on an individual the responsibility of ascertaining the "prescribed form" and making an immediate report in that form.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 are related. They arise from representations made by Senator Russell and Senator Lenihan during the passage of the Bill through the Seanad to the effect that penalties for conviction at summary jurisdiction for the various offences covered in the Bill should be standardised at the maximum permissible in accordance with the Constitution. I am advised that this maximum is a maximum fine of £500 together with a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both the fine and imprisonment. The amendments provide for the insertion of these penalties in the relevant sections of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Question "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.