Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1987

Vol. 117 No. 10

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. P. Gallagher)

Since I took up office, I have been very conscious of the vulnerability of the Irish coastline to the threat of oil pollution particularly from oil tankers. Ireland is in an especially vulnerable position due to its proximity to major sea routes, the length of our coastline and the severity of the weather which can affect the seas around the country. I am most anxious, therefore, to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce the threat of major oil spills and to minimise the impact of any incidents which might occur in the future. The absence of a legislative regime covering liability and compensation for oil pollution damage from oil tankers was one major gap which needed to be filled. Accordingly I took the necessary steps to have a Bill covering this area introduced in the Oireachtas at the earliest opportunity.

The main aims of this Bill are first, to ensure that oil tankers entering or leaving Irish ports have adequate insurance to cover their liability for oil pollution damage; secondly, to provide supplemental cover where oil tanker owners' liability is exceeded and, thirdly, to establish a legal framework for recovery of costs connected with oil pollution incidents. The Bill and consequential regulations will enable Ireland to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and its 1976 protocol and also the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, and its 1976 protocol. These conventions are generally referred to as the Civil Liability Convention and the Fund Convention. For the information of Senators I have placed a copy of a booklet which includes both conventions in the Library of the House.

The Civil Liability Convention obliges owners of ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo to have appropriate insurance to cover liability to a specified limit for oil pollution damage. The liability limit is £116 approximately per ton up to a maximum of £12 million approximately whichever is the lesser. The equivalents of these figures are set out in section 10.

The Fund Convention provides for the establishment of a fund financed by oil companies for payment of compensation for oil pollution where shipowners' liability is exceeded up to a current overall maximum of £46 million approximately. This limit will be increased to approximately £52 million from 1 December 1987 and it is the equivalent of this figure which is referred to in section 21.

The units of account referred to in sections 10 and 21 are special drawing rights of the International Monetary Fund. The actual equivalent in Irish pounds will depend on the exchange applying on a particular day. The unit of account for both conventions was originally gold francs and this was changed to special drawing rights of the IMF in the 1976 protocols to both conventions.

At present Ireland is reliant on voluntary international schemes for compensation in the event of oil pollution damage from ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo. These agreements are the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement on Liability for Oil Pollution, TOVALOP, and a Contract Regarding a Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution, CRISTAL. TOVALOP and CRISTAL were intended to be interim solutions and to remain in operation only until the Civil Liability and Fund Conventions had worldwide application. While the scope of TOVALOP and CRISTAL is similar to that of the international conventions, it is not possible to incorporate their provisions into national law.

As regards the liability of oil tanker owners, sections 7 and 8 outline the situations where oil tanker owners can limit their liability and where they can be exempt from liability.

In the event of damage from oil pollution, owners of laden oil tankers will have strict liability for such damage except in a few particular cases, namely, when the damage results from an act of war or a grave natural disaster, or the damage is wholly caused by sabotage by a third party, or the damage is wholly caused by the failure of authorities to maintain navigational aids. If the oil pollution damage is proved to have been due to the personal fault of the tanker owner, he will not be able to limit his liability.

The liability of the Fund Convention is covered in sections 20 and 21. The Fund Convention becomes liable if claimants are unable to obtain full compensation under the Civil Liability Convention for one of the following reasons: no liability arises under the Civil Liability Convention; the owner is financially incapable of meeting his obligations under the Civil Liability Convention and his insurance is inadequate; the damage exceeds the owner's liability under the Civil Liability Convention.

However, the Fund Convention does not have to pay compensation if the pollution damage resulted from an act of war, or if it cannot be proved that the damage resulted from an incident involving one or more ships, or was due to the wilful misconduct or personal fault of the owner.

In relation to those claiming compensation under this legislation, I have included a provision in section 12 whereby, after a court has decided that a shipowner is liable for oil pollution damage, the court may order the payment in court of the amount of the owner's liability. I feel that this provision will be a useful safeguard to claimants. Furthermore, under section 13 where a ship has incurred a liability for oil pollution damage, any other ship in the State which has the same owner may be detained.

Section 16 outlines the provisions in relation to the insurance of Irish registered ships carrying 2,000 tonnes or more of oil in bulk as cargo and all other ships carrying these quantities of oil to or from Irish ports. All these must carry insurance certificates showing that the vessels have appropriate insurance cover. Inspectors appointed by the Minister for the Marine, surveyors of the Department of the Marine, sea fisheries protection officers and harbour masters may carry out inspections of ships to ensure that the required insurance certificate is carried on board. If a ship does not have the required insurance certificate, it may be detained.

The fund of the Fund Convention is financed by persons in the contracting States to this convention who receive crude oil and heavy fuel in these States after sea transport. Section 19 provides for receivers of these types of oil in Ireland to make the appropriate subscriptions to the fund.

The penalties in section 38 are divided into two categories. The greater penalties of a fine up to £1 million and — or imprisonment of up to give years in the first subsection are for offences such as a ship ignoring a detention order, a ship not having the required insurance cover and an oil receiver failing to make the required payment to the fund. The lower penalties in the second subsection are for persons who impede inspectors and harbour masters in the carrying out of their inspection functions.

I believe this Bill will greatly improve the position in relation to liability and compensation from oil pollution damage caused by oil tankers and I am hopeful that it will have a speedy passage through both houses.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Kennedy

I would like to welcome the Bill, the main purpose of which is to enable Ireland to give effect to two international conventions, the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, commonly known as the Civil Liability Convention, or CLC, and the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, commonly known as the Fund Convention, or the FC, and the 1976 protocols to these two conventions. The opening sentences of the 1969 convention make a laudable preface to this Bill when it states:

The States, parties to the present convention, conscious of the dangers of pollution posed by the worldwide maritime carriage of oil in bulk, convinced of the need to ensure that adequate compensation is available to persons who suffer damage caused by pollution resulting from the escape or discharge of oil from ships, desiring to adopt uniform international rules and procedures for determining questions of liability and providing adequate compensation in such cases have agreed this Convention.

This preface to the 1969 CLC is, in fact, the guts of this Bill, the main provisions of which are: (1) to ensure that all oil tankers, whether within or without the State, have adequate insurance to cover their liability for oil pollution damage; (2) to provide supplementary cover where the liability of owners of oil tankers is exceeded; and (3) to provide a legal framework for the recovery of costs connected with oil pollution incidents. The pollution resulting from the accident to the giant tanker, the Torrey Canyon, in 1969, made it clear that the 1957 International Convention on the Limitation of the Liability of Seagoing Ships set limits which were totally inadequate to compensate for pollution damage on a scale which modern super tankers are capable of causing.

This disaster revealed, as the Minister has indicated, many gaps in the law and, in particular, it raised doubts whether in some circumstances clean-up costs were always recoverable and it highlighted the considerable jurisdictional difficulties in bringing proceedings at all. As a first step an international legal conference was convened in Brussels in 1969 by IMCO, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which adopted the CLC, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. The 1969 convention provided that, subject to certain exceptions, shipowners should be liable, regardless of fault, for oil pollution damage caused by the escapes of oil from a loaded tanker.

The 1969 convention also raised the limit for the shipowners' liability set by the 1957 convention, but not far enough to ensure full compensation. Indeed, the exemptions from liability could have left some victims entirely without compensation. A second conference was, therefore, convened by IMCO in 1971 and they adopted a further convention setting up an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.

These two conventions, the Civil Liability Convention and the Fund Convention, provide an interlocking system of a fund, shipowner liability and compulsory insurance. The CLC makes it mandatory on the owners of oil tankers to have appropriate insurance to cover liability to a specific limit for oil pollution damage. The liability limit is £116 per ton, approximately, up to a maximum of £12 million, approximately, whichever is the lesser. The FC is supplementary to the CLC and provides for the establishment of a fund financed by the oil companies for the payment of compensation for oil pollution where the liability of shipowners is exceeded up to a current overall maximum of £46 million approximately. The Civil Liability Convention had 57 contracting States as at 1 June 1987 and the Fund Convention had 35 contracting States as at that date.

In addition, as the Minister has indicated, to these two international conventions, there are two important voluntary international schemes set up by the tanker owners and the oil companies respectively. Ireland is at present reliant on these schemes for compensation in the event of oil pollution damage from oil tankers. One of these schemes is the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement on liability for Oil Pollution — TOVALOP. As its title suggests, it is an agreement between tanker owners to pay larger sums in compensation for oil pollution than they are obliged to pay under international law currently in force.

The second scheme is a voluntary fund set up by the international oil industry to pay compensation beyond what is available under national legislation and TOVALOP up to a certain maximum. The second scheme is called CRISTAL which, as the Minister has indicated, is short for Contract Regarding a Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution. It is a kind of super TOVALOP. While the scope of TOVALOP and CRISTAL is similar to that of the two international conventions, it is not possible to incorporate their provisions into national law. This Bill will give effect to the two international conventions and the 1976 protocols of these conventions.

Part II of the Bill provides for civil liability for pollution damage. Under section 7 of part II in relation to oil pollution damage, the owners of laden oil tankers will have strict liability for such damage except in a few cases as provided for in section 8 of the Bill where the shipowner proves: (a) that the damage results from an act of war or a natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character, which is generally termed "an act of God"; (b) the damage was due wholly to a deliberate act or omission of a third party intended to cause damage for example, sabotage by a person outside the ship; or (c) the damage was wholly caused by the negligence or wrongful act of any Government or other authority responsible for the maintenance of lights or other navigational aids. If oil pollution damage is proved to have been due to the personal fault of the tanker owner, he will not be able to limit his liability.

Part III of the Bill deals with the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, the IOPC Fund, which was set up in 1978 under the Fund Convention. The IOPC Fund is a worldwide intergovernmental organisation established for the purpose of administering the regime of compensation created by the Fund Convention. Section 20 (2) of Part III provides that the supplementary compensation available under the Fund Convention becomes payable if claimants are unable to obtain compensation under the Civil Liability Convention for one of the following reasons: (a) where no liability arises under the CLC; (b) where the owner is financially incapable of meeting his obligations under the CLC and his insurance is inadequate; and (c) where the damage exceeds the liability of the shipowner under the CLC.

The Fund Convention does not have to pay compensation if: (a) pollution damage results from an act of war, etc.; (b) it cannot be proved that the damage resulted from an accident involving one or more ships; and (c) the pollution damage resulted from any wilful misconduct of the shipowner. Tankers carring 2,000 tonnes or over of oil in bulk or cargo must carry insurance certificates showing that they have appropriate insurance cover. As the Minister has indicated, for offences under the Bill the penalties rise from a fine not exceeding £1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both, to a fine not exceeding £1 million or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.

It is clear that the present state of the law relating to oil pollution damage is far from satisfactory. I believe that the speedy passage of this very important Bill which will give effect to these two international conventions will go a long way towards improving the position of a claimant who seeks compensation for damage or losses suffered from oil-pollution without imposing an impossible or unreasonable burden on the shipping industry. Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo.

Mr. Lanigan

Before I address myself to the Bill, I would like to mention to the House that the all clear has been given to the area of pollution downstairs. The problem with the gas leak has apparently been solved so anybody who wants to get back to their offices can do so now. As I said before we will have to have a full examination into the cause of that leak and why, since there have been leaks before, there has been this recurrence.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is appropriate that he is coming to the House with a Bill as important as the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987. Anybody who has seen the results of oil pollution cannot but welcome this Bill. Anybody who has gone around our coastline and seen the depredation caused by oil, whether from a leaking ship out at sea or as a result of an accident in one of our bays, knows that it is about time compensation should be paid. Unfortunately, the damage done when oil leaks from a ship cannot always be compensated for by the payment of cash because there could be an environmental problem that might never be resolved. Anybody who has seen the damage done to birds, to our beaches, to fish and particularly shellfish, would have to welcome this Bill wholeheartedly.

The main aim of the Bill is to allow Ireland to become party to the international conventions — the Civil Liability Convention, 1969, and the Fund Convention, 1971. There are a few questions I would like to ask. I would like to know how many of the countries involved in the transportation of oil have signed these international conventions? Have all countries in which ships are registered become part of the international conventions? At times it is virtually impossible to find out who the owners of ships are. We saw an instance of that in Country Cork last year.

The Bill covers goods carried. It covers the oil being carried but in many cases the oil is carried in ships that are not fit for the job they are supposed to be doing. Many of these ships have not been repaired up to international standards. Indeed, mention was made of the Torrey Canyon by Senator Kennedy. A sister ship of the Torrey Canyon went down in the Indian Ocean some years ago and no explanation was given. It is now thought there were structural faults in that ship that caused it to go down and yet the Torrey Canyon was allowed to sail for many years after that accident. The carriage of the goods is covered if there is a pollution problem. Nevertheless the dangers of spillage from some of these ships because of structural faults or bad maintenance still exist.

The Minister said the main aim of the Bill is to ensure that oil tankers entering or leaving Irish ports have adequate insurance to cover their liability for oil pollution damage. If a ship which is passing through Irish waters has a spill, the ship can go through Irish waters, spill going through Irish waters, leave Irish waters and may not be able to be brought into an Irish port so that claims can be made against it. I would like to ask the Minister if there is any way ships passing through Irish waters can be proceeded against outside the State under this Bill, the Civil Liability Convention of 1969 or the Fund Convention of 1971?

There is mention in the Bill of a grave natural disaster and, in the event of damage from oil pollution, owners of laden oil tankers will have strict liability for such damage except in a few cases, namely, when the damage results from an act of war or a grave natural disaster. Would a storm at sea be considered a grave natural disaster? In the case of the ship that pulled into Country Cork as a result of a storm, would the owners be able to plead that they should not have to pay compensation because they had to pull in as a result of a grave natural disaster which was a storm of an exceptional nature? The question I am asking is: can a storm be considered a grave natural disaster? If this is so, there is a need to have an amendment made to this Bill. I am not too sure that making an amendment here would have any great consequence unless storms are covered under the Civil Liability Convention, 1969, and the Fund Convention of 1971.

The carriage of oil is a particularly dangerous business to be in. Because of that it is a business which needs to be monitored extremely carefully. Because the carriage of oil has not been as profitable during the past number of years as it was when oil was very dear, I suggest that there is not the same amount of money going into the maintenance of these ships as there should be.

The welcome I give to the Bill is a very genuine one because it goes a long way towards showing the owners of tankers and oil companies that they cannot get away with bad maintenance of their ships or that they cannot get away with the type of pollution they have caused in the past. I am glad the fines which can be imposed on them are quite high.

I am also glad that where there is not adequate insurance cover to compensate for damage done the Fund Convention becomes liable if a claimant is unable to obtain full compensation under the Civil Liability Convention. In cases where no liability arises under the Civil Liability Convention, the owner is financially incapable of meeting his obligations under the Civil Liability Convention, his insurance is inadequate and the damage exceeds the owner's liability under the Civil Liability Convention there is a method, other than going against the owners, if there is a higher compensation need than is covered by the owners.

As I said the Minister is very welcome to the House and in particular, I welcome the bringing in of a measure of such importance as this.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, welcome the introduction of this Bill in the Seanad. I want the Minister to explain why there has been such delay by Ireland in ratifying the two conventions which are at issue here. The Minister in his speech introducing the Bill pointed to the especially vulnerable position of Ireland. He pointed to that because of our proximity to major sea routes, the length of our coastline and the severity of our weather. Other contributors to this debate have pointed to the very serious damage which has been caused to our coast by oil tanker pollution. We have suffered continuing damage, damage which is still persisting and probably has not yet been fully calculated.

I ask that question in all seriousness and I am not making any party political point about it. The two conventions in question were brought into effect some time ago. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage has been adopted for 18 years and the protocol to it was adopted in November 1976, 11 years ago. Similarly, the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage was adopted in 1971, 16 years ago, and the protocol to that was adopted in November 1976, 11 years ago. Why is is that we have been so slow — not exclusively I hasten to make clear — in this area of ratifying conventions relating to protection and insurance cover for oil pollution? We seem to be very slow at ratifying international conventions generally, in the human rights area and in a number of other areas. Specifically it seems to be a very pertinent question so that we can learn from our failures and our omissions in the past. If the Minister is in a position to do so, I would be grateful if he would explain in his reply to the Second Stage debate why there has been such delay?

I note in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that the position as stated is that it is not anticipated that there would be any additional Exchequer costs incurred in implementing the Bill and it is not anticipated that there would be any staff implications for the Departments of State, State bodies and local authorities. A potential reason for delaying ratification would be if there were substantial costs or if there were substantial staffing implications. Apparently that is not the case with this measure.

That raises another issue. The Bill provides for the appointment by the Minister of inspectors and provides for the carrying out of certain monitoring functions under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would deal with the point as to how confident he is that these can be totally and adequately discharged within the present staffing allocation in the Department? It would be necessary to reassure the House that, not withstanding the fact that there would be no new staffing commitments under the provisions of the Bill, the requirements as set out in particular for appointing inspectors and for monitoring the ships in question, their tonnage and that they carry the necessary insurance cover would be fully established.

Finally, I would like the Minister, in his reply, to deal with the position of harbour masters. Would it be fair to say that the ports which have harbour masters will have a greater possibility of cover under this Bill than other ports? Is the Minister satisfied that the cover will be adequate notwithstanding the absence of specific authority to a harbour master in a particular port?

Like other Senators I welcome the thrust of the Bill. We need no reminding of how urgent and necessary it is. We have to examine and reflect on the delay on Ireland's part in ratifying these important conventions.

Éamon de Buitléar

Cuirim an-fháilte roimh an mBille seo agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire agus le chuile dhuine eile a bhí páirteach in obair an Bhille seo. Cé go raibh moill ar an mBille, is dócha gur fearr deireannach ná ró-dheireannach. De réir a chéile atá muintir na tíre seo ag foghlaim gur beag eile atá chomh tábhachtach leis an timpeallacht seo in a chónaimid go léir ann agus tá an fhairrge mar chuid den timpeallacht sin. Tuigim go maith go bhfuil rógairí an tsaoil amuigh ansin ar fhairrgí móra an domhain agus go dtarlóidh timpistí nach bhfuil leigheas againn orthu ach tá sé thar a bheith riachtanach go mbain-fear lán-úsáid anois as an gcomhacht a thabharfaidh an Bille seo dóibh siúd a bhfuil sé de chúram orthu fairrgí na hÉireann a choinneáil slán.

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don méid a dúirt an Seanadóir Lanigan i dtaobh na báid mhóra sin a bhíonn amuigh nó a bhionn le feiceáil amach ón chósta seo, againne agus a fhiafraigh den Aire an mbeidh aon chomhacht againn rud ar bith a dhéanamh futhu siúd ó thaobh scrúdú a dhéanamh orthu agus mar sin de. Pé rud a dhéanfar amach anseo chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le híocaíocht de bharr truailliú, b'fhearr go mór, ar ndóigh nach dtarlódh a leithéid ar chor an bith. Is cuma cén moladh a thugtar don Bhille, mura gcuirfear an dlí i bhfeidhm, ní bheidh san obair seo go léir ach cur amú ama.

I congratulate the Minister on this Bill which I am sure will be welcomed by everybody, even those remotely interested in the environment. It has taken us a very long time to realise the gold mine that our seas really are, although foreigners realised it years ago. In recent times we have had the very unpleasant experience of seeing several oil spillages along our beautiful shores. Regardless of what the financial climate is like, Ireland cannot afford disasters. It does not matter what compensation comes our way; we cannot put a monetary value on the flora and fauna along our 2,000 miles of coastline.

Not only can this country ill-afford damage to the environment; it cannot afford the kind of rescue operations carried out by the richer nations when they have a major problem. Having said that, we perform very well in emergencies when all the stops are out. But it would be far less expensive for us in every way if we were to prevent such disasters happening in the first place. In other words, prevention is much cheaper than cure.

For this reason, if for no other, we should pay particular attention to Part V of the Bill. A high standard of inspection of ships and ports is of the utmost importance and it is essential that our methods of inspection are adequate. Also we should be in a position to act very swiftly in case of emergency.

What we lost after the Kowloon Bridge disaster cannot really be quantified and, indeed, long after the public were getting reports of a satisfactory clean-up I was receiving information about heavily polluted strips of coastline way beyond the emergency area. The kind of operation carried out on that occasion would not, for instance, be suitable in more sensitive areas such as a valuable salt marsh or a sea lough such as Lough Inagh. The methods used in the open sea could be very damaging to some marine habitats and less severe operations should be prepared in case of an emergency in any of those areas.

In making claims for compensation we should not forget that many voluntary organisations spent hours upon hours working on these cleaning up exercises for which they received no money whatsoever. Although we cannot quantify the environmental damage caused as a result of a tanker spilling oil, if we pick just one bird species as an example it might give us some idea of the overall effect which this kind of situation can have on our wildlife.

When the Kowloon Bridge broke up at least 2,000 guillemots died as a result of the oil spillage. How does one put a value in pounds or pence on a guillemot, razorbill or a gannet, not to mention the fish, the plants and all the other marine life found along a stretch of coastline? It is worth mentioning this in order to emphasise how terribly important it is for us to do all in our power to try to prevent any such disasters happening in the future. Whatever about accidents, we cannot excuse carelessness.

Professor Hillery

There is no question but that the public are now more acutely aware of the quality of their environment than has been the case heretofore. This applies not only in Ireland but in many other countries including those of our EC partners. It is worthy of note that the Single European Act in its references to the environment underlines the urgency of tackling environmental problems and it also underlines the need for information and access to information on various environmental problems including the problem of oil pollution.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on moving so quickly in introducing this important Bill. After all, the Minister and his Government are in office less than eight months. The Bill fills a serious gap in our legislative arrangements in that there will now be legal requirements covering liability and compensation for oil pollution damage from oil tankers.

Echoing Senator de Buitléar, one of our great natural assets is our coastline which because of our geographical location is near many major sea routes. The beauty of the coastline is for the most part, though regrettably not in all cases, characterised or added to by pollution free waters. These provide a great natural amenity not alone for our own citizens but for our tourists. Tourism is one of our key industries and we must make every effort to preserve and develop our amenities.

The Bill before us addresses the problem of reducing the threat of major oil spills, thereby removing our reliance on the voluntary international schemes for compensation for oil pollution from tankers. The Bill gets to grips with that vexed issue by ensuring that, where oil damage is proved to have been due to the personal fault of the tanker owner, he will not be able to limit his liability. Furthermore, in section 12 where a court has decided that a ship owner is liable for oil pollution damage, the court at its discretion may order the payment in court of the amount of the owner's liability. More than that in section 13 the Bill makes provision that the owner of an offending ship can have any other ship which he owns in the State detained.

A recent reminder, and a serious one at that, of the risk to our coastal waters was represented by oil spillage from tankers. In the case of the Kowloon Bridge disaster serious though it was — and I regret that Senator de Buitléar has found evidence that there is still some damage resulting from that disaster — it is only fair to put on record the splendid work done under the leadership of the Minister and his Department in tackling the problem of cleaning up as far as possible the 300 tonnes of heavy crude oil that escaped form the wreck of the Kowloon Bridge. With characteristic initiative and energy the Minister tackled the oil spillage problem by having a survey conducted on the scope of the problem.

Full credit is due to the divers from the Cork area who conducted the survey, backed up by UK consultants, and assisted in the continuation of the clean up job. The Cork divers deserve our thanks for the skill and courage they demonstrated in that operation. The benefits of modern technology were also evident in the case of the clean up in that the most modern technology was applied to the task by Irish people with back up from experts in the salvage area from Holland.

I touched on the EC a moment ago and I would like also to refer to the fact that the EC have established a task force to deal with major pollution incidents at sea. This was announced in September by the EC Commission in the wake of the Kowloon Bridge disaster and is, therefore, of considerable importance to Ireland and to other EC member states. The issue was raised by Mr. Gene Fitzgerald, a member of the European Parliament and in reply to a question he posed the European Commission took the opportunity to reveal its new plans. The Kowloon Bridge disaster was debated in the European Parliament as far back as last December and a resolution calling for EC action was adopted.

This EC task force comprises several dozens of specialists from different member states. Their services can be requested and supplied within minutes of news of an incident reaching the Commission. The establishment of the task force, the Commission believes, will give the Community the capacity to react promptly and efficiently. This is an important initiative for Ireland as well as the other EC countries. I now commend Mr. Gene Fitzgerald, MEP, for his initiative in pursuing this matter at European level.

Turning specifically to the Bill and to domestic legislation, the Bill before us will greatly help to prevent a repetition of disasters like the Kowloon Bridge. The Bill, though in this instance limited in scope to reducing the threat of major oil spills from tankers, represents an important step in bringing our outdated maritime legislation into the 20th century. This legislative area has been neglected. There is no question about that. The speed with which the Minister has introduced this Bill augurs well for further legislation from his Department. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, could give us an indication of his intention to update among other things the Merchant Shipping Acts so that our maritime law will match the realities of the eighties and beyond.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Daly, my fellow Clareman, on his excellent work in that Department to date and to link with that the Minister of State Deputy P. Gallagher. They have set a fast pace in reform in the area of marine affairs. I wish them both every success in the challenging years ahead.

Mr. D. Kiely

Like previous speakers I welcome the Minister to the House and the speed with which he has introduced the Bill. It is long overdue and should have been introduced some years ago. We should not have waited for a disaster such as the Kowloon Bridge to bring the problem of this type of damage to our environment to a head. Like the previous speakers, I congratulate both Ministers on the way they handled the incident involving the Kowloon Bridge. Prior to that there was an incident in west Kerry which was our first spillage, a serious spillage off the coast of Ireland. At that time the nettle should have been grasped and something should have been done about the pollution of our environment. That disaster caused untold damage to the countries of Kerry, Clare and Cork. The seepage from that tanker off west Kerry was around for a considerable time. The mop up and dry up operation carried out by the local authorities in Cork, Kerry and Clare cost an enormous amount of money. No local authority had made provision in their Estimates for a clean up operation such as that. That is one of the reasons I welcome this Bill.

The insurance policies of companies entering and leaving ports or entering our waters and the viability of those policies must be questioned. How are we to know that these companies have proper insurances entering and leaving our ports? Is there a special type of insurance policy that will have to be shown to the inspector or the Department of the Marine? Considerable amounts of moneys have been spent on our tourism, particularly on our western seaboard. An amount of damage was done to Cork and Kerry as a result of the two oil spillages. Not alone did it interfere with the tourist industry and the people in business in those areas, but it also interefered with our local people for whom we provide these amenities. Those people must be protected also.

I was glad to hear Senator de Buitléar speak on the wildlife aspect because, as a wildlife man myself, I saw at first hand the amount of damage done to the various species of wildlife off the west coast of Ireland. As well as that considerable damage has been caused to our breeding grounds, our fishing stock and our herring grounds in those areas. I would like to know who is responsible for the removal of wrecks from our shores in the event of ships coming onshore due to storms and so forth. Is it the local authority in the area, or is it the Department of the Environment? Will the new Insurance Bill that is going through the Dáil make money available to remove the eyesores from our shores? As well as that I would like to know — perhaps it happens to all ships that come to our shores — when ships come in with a load of oil they clean out their tanks a few miles off our shore. Is that aspect covered by this Bill or is there a limited mileage around our shores where this pollution could be prevented? I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Minister to the House.

Mr. McGowan

I join with other Senators in complimenting the Minister of State on introducing this Bill in the Seanad. It is easy for me to do that. It is right and proper to recognise the importance of the Bill. I am sure I do not have to tell the Minister the serious consequences of pollution for our western seaboard and, indeed, the whole country. The overall dangers of oil pollution to this island cannot be overstated and cannot be over-emphasised. The introduction of the Bill is important. It is more important to have good policing and to have some method of identifying polluters than it is to have good legislation. If you have good legislation you must also have detection. Depending on Greenpeace or outside agencies to forewarn us of danger is not right.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

It is anticipated that no additional Exchequer costs will be incurred in implementing this Bill when it is enacted.

I hope we can police the new measures now being introduced. It is nice to see the penalties on paper. The offender is a risk taker, a man who has a vessel with which he takes risks. He uses a "lame duck" tanker or a leaking tanker. There is some deficiency in the vessel he is using. Tragedies happen with tankers as they do with other vehicles. If the vehicle is overloaded, or if it is run without a proper service you are looking for trouble.

It has been proven beyond doubt that there are tanker owners who neglect maintenance and who run tankers that are at high risk. I am concerned as to how we can bridge the gap between having good legislation and implementing it effectively. I totally support the proposal that we must be part of an international organisation to take effective action. We should also have our own detection system, that is important.

At present, some local authorities are obliged to keep detergents in stock. I question the effectiveness of this, the cost and how efficient we will be if we are ever called on to use those detergents to dispel or disperse oil spills. Whether we are talking about the Torrey Canyon or other tragedies, we are not forewarned. It is not a planned visit to our ports that will cause us a problem. When there is a problem with a boat the captain puts in to the nearest port he can reach. We have many ports and coves around our shore where they seek shelter.

In fact, so great is the problem that it is nearly impossible to police it. I would welcome a statement from the Minister of State that we have the resources to detect "lame duck" tankers coming into our ports in times of storm. There are two stages: No. 1 is the detection of the problem; and No. 2 is the clearing up of the pollution after it happens. Perhaps No. 3 is compensation for damage afterwards. There is no point in codding ourselves that we are big enough to have all the resources. We need an international organisation contributed to substantially by the people who are making a profit in oil. We must have the ability to detect a pollution problem before it happens. That will be our greatest safeguard. It is fitting that the Bill was introduced in this House and I join with other Senators in welcoming it. My deepest concern is our ability to implement it and to police it after it is enacted.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. P. Gallagher)

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí go léir a labhair anseo inniu agus tá mé an-sásta os rud é go bhfuil an oiread sin suime san Bhille seo, go bhfuil an oiread sin suime ag na Seanadóiri san fharraige timpeall na tíre seo agus san timpeallacht é féin. Molaim go mór na Seanadóiri as ucht an méid a bhí le rá acu.

I thank all the Senators who contributed here today. It is very gratifying to note the welcome which this Bill has received in this House. I also thank Senators for indicating that they want to give this Bill a speedy passage through this House and hopefully it will have a speedy passage through the Dáil in order that we have this Bill enacted at the earliest possible date.

Senator Lanigan referred to the countries that had signed the Bill and all of those who have become part of the convention on international standards. If ships passing through our waters, not necessarily arriving at or leaving this country, have an oil spillage we are covered by this Bill. In regard to the words "grave national disaster" in the Bill we are compelled to have the exact wording of the conventions and the protocols. We feel that the wording is adequate. References have been made by a number of Senators to a "grave natural disaster". At the end of the day that will be a matter for the courts to interpret. An example is the hurricane we had last year. It does not necessarily mean that would be covered but it is an example out of time, out of season, with no forewarning.

Senator Robinson mentioned the Civil Liability Convention 1969, the Fund Convention 1971 and the 1976 Protocols. The Civil Liability Convention 1969 goes back some 18 years and the Fund Convention 1971 goes back 16 years. The 1976 Protocols go back some 11 years. Since they were not adding any cost to the Exchequer the Senator asked why the Bill was not introduced before? Obviously we are the first Government since that time to take this problem seriously. The Department of the Marine was set up by this Government. We now have a specific responsibility for this. We have taken the initiative and have introduced this Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987. I hope it will be enacted very soon. I do not want that to sound like a facetious answer, but it is a fact.

Senator Robinson referred to Exchequer costs as did Senator McGowan. It is anticipated that no additional Exchequer costs will be incurred in implementing this Bill when it is enacted. It is also anticipated that there will be no staff implications for Departments, State, State bodies and local authorities. I am quite satisfied that there will be no additional Exchequer costs. As anticipated there will be a number of officials responsible for the inspections: officials appointed by the Minister, existing harbour masters, existing sea fishery officers and all of those will take on board this extra duty to ensure that there is ample cover.

Senator Robinson also referred to the question of harbour masters and asked if harbour masters were in some ports would they be in a better position to detect a problem as against smaller ports. The simple answer is that most of the oil coming in to many of the ports will be coming into the larger ports but it does not necessarily follow that if a port does not have a harbour master it has got a problem. The Bill provides for harbour masters, inspectors appointed by the Minister, surveyors, sea fishery protection officers. All of these will have a part to play and whether it is in an area where there is a harbour master or otherwise, I do not think that will be detrimental to any area that does not have a harbour master.

Since the conventions of 1969 and 1971 the Government accepted in principle the duties and liabilities of both conventions subject to legislation being introduced. I accept that it has taken a long time but thankfully it is before this House now and hopefully will be enacted very soon.

Senator Lanigan refered to the number of countries which are covered. All the main shipping nations have acceded to the conventions except the USA which does not, in fact, operate a fleet in our area. The US is more likely to be a member of the voluntary schemes. While it was not obligatory to pay and to contribute towards the schemes, practically all of those involved in shipping did. It was in their interests to make contributions to ensure that they had cover. One question was not asked but I think I should refer to it: will this result in dearer oil prices as as a result of the introduction of this Bill? I believe that, because most of the carriers involved contributed voluntarily, it will not add in any way to the Exchequer costs.

Senator de Buitléar is more knowledgeable than any of us about wildlife and the preservation of our natural amenities. Tá a fhios agam go maith chomh tábhachtach is atá an fhairrge thart ar an oileán seo agus ceapaim féin go gcuideoidh an Bille seo leis an fhairrge agus leis an timpeallacht a choinneáil glan. Chomh maith leis sin, beidh árachas ar fáil chun cuidiú a thabhairt dóibh siúd a gcaillfeadh dá mbeadh spillage mar seo ann.

I also appreciate the point made by Senator de Buitléar that it is impossible to quantify. I do not think any of us can suggest that we can quantify the loss as a result of spillage in relation to our wildlife and our environment. These losses could have a knock-on effect for many decades if they had an effect on our breeding grounds, as referred to by Senator Kiely. It is difficult to quantify but having this insurance will certainly assist us in resolving the problems.

I take the many points made by Senator Hillery and thank him for references to the job carried out by all of those involved in the clean up after the Kowloon Bridge disaster. The officials in my Department and all of those concerned with the environment and defence, all the voluntary bodies and the local authorities did an excellent job in ensuring that the clean up job was completed very quickly. We realised the extent of the disaster and the effects which it could have if we did not take the initiatives which we took on assuming power in March of this year. He also made reference to the Community and to one of its members.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the EC Commission who helped with technical assistance in the Kowloon Bridge case which was very much appreciated by all of us and, indeed, helped financially with the clean up operation. It is important to state at this point that a claim has been lodged and we are optimistic that we will be successful in securing a substantial amount of money as a result. The Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987, does not cover a Kowloon Bridge situation. I do not think it is necessary but we had better put it on record that this covers vessels carrying oil as cargo, not vessels carrying another type of cargo and carrying oil as fuel.

The Merchant Shipping Bill which is in the pipeline at present will introduce stronger measures to be taken in a Kowloon Bridge situation. We have in preparation a sea pollution Bill. I was asked by one Senator to indicate the further Bills which are to be introduced. That is an anti-pollution measure which is to be taken and relates to all ships as a preventative measure. Work has begun on consolidating and updating the Merchant Shipping Acts. This is a major undertaking and is very high on the priority list of my Department and, indeed, the priority list of the Government.

While Senator Kiely referred to the Kowloon Bridge he also referred to the Ranga which went on the rocks off Dún an Oir four years ago. That was a matter for the local authorities and I have not got information available to me now in relation to the claim made at that time.

The Kowloon Bridge disaster was dealt with under the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Act, 1977. The question of coverage in relation to the pumping out of the bilge of a boat would not be covered under this Bill. That is covered under the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 to 1977. To allay any fears in relation to the pumping out of the bilge and the effect it could have on the environment and breeding stock, that is covered under the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 to 1977.

Senator McGowan referred to the additional Exchequer cost incurred. As I stated earlier in my reply, I do not believe there will be any as inspections will be carried out by the harbour masters, the protection staff and officers to be appointed and given responsibility by the Minister. Senator McGowan referred to the question of penalties and cover. We feel that the two levels of penalties in the Bill are adequate. However, if we find at any stage in the future that they are not, we are always open to suggestions and will have another look at them.

The question was raised whether we could have the resources to detect defective tankers coming into our ports. If the hulls are not properly maintained the owners will not be able to get the required insurance. In other words, insurance companies carry out inspections each year and no insurance company would cover defective boats. We are talking about cover of up to £12 million per boat or £116 per tonne, whichever is the lesser. I am satisfied that every step will be taken to ensure that there will be no defects in the hull or any other part of the boat.

I hope I have answered the many valid points raised by Senators. I appreciate the interest expressed by Senators and the welcome given to the introduction of this Bill. As I said at the outset, one of the main reasons for introducing this Bill so expeditiously is that the Minister and I were extremely conscious of the vulnerability of the coastline to the threat of oil pollution, particularly from oil tankers. Ireland is perhaps more vulnerable than any other country. I am pleased that a Fianna Fáil Government introduced this Bill. Unfortunately, it was not introduced at an earlier stage. However, if all stages are taken today it will go to the Dáil and hopefully will be enacted before the Christmas recess.

Mar fhocal scoir, gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Seanadóirí go léir a tháinig isteach anseo inniu chun an cheist thábhachtach seo a phlé. Má tá ceisteanna ar bith, má tá mion-cheisteanna níos moille inniu, déanfaidh mé mo dhícheal chun freagra a thabhairt ar na ceisteanna sin. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An chéad chéim eile?

Mr. W. Ryan

The Minister indicated that he was anxious to have this Bill completed today if possible. I have no objection, but I understand Members who could not be here today are anxious to speak on Committee Stage. Would it be suitable to take Committee Stage next Wednesday?

Mr. Manning

It is a very good Bill on which we can all find a substantial measure of agreement. Unfortunately, our spokesman on the marine is not available today. I would appreciate if it were possible to take the Bill next Wednesday but, if it is necessary to take it today, I certainly will not stand in the way.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a matter for the House.

Mr. W. Ryan

What does the Minister think? Would another week make any difference?

Mr. P. Gallagher

I would like to complete all stages, but, by the same token, we want to ensure that everyone who wishes to contribute is facilitated. I would be very pleased if we could take the Bill on Wednesday next and ensure that we have it through the House possibly some time that evening.

Mr. Manning

I appreciate what the Minister has said. There will be no difficulty on our part and certainly there will be no obstruction or delay in getting it through the House next Wednesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 11 November 1987.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.45 p.m.