We are on the Report Stage of the Oil Pollution of the Sea Bill (Civil Liability and Compensation), 1987. This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 82 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 purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as a report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matter, therefore, that may be discussed is the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of these amendments.
Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987: [Seanad Bill Amended by Dáil ] Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for Final Consideration."
As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question.
The Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill has been passed by Dáil Éireann with amendments and I would like to explain these amendments to this House. The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to cover Rosslare Harbour, which is under the administrative control of Iarnrod Éireann-Irish Rail.
The intention of amendment No. 2 is to make it clear that both the harbour master and any other person enforcing the provisions of that Act must each be appointed by a harbour authority, as defined. I envisage that in certain cases the harbour master and his deputy might each be appointed by a harbour authority to enforce the provisions of this Act in their own harbour.
The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to make it clear that the "liability" referred to is "liability for pollution damage". The subsection , as amended, means that an owner of a ship shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under section 7 of the Bill. Amendment No. 4 is a technical amendment which I brought forward on the advice of the Attorney General.
The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to correct the positioning of certain words which were transposed during the printing of the Bill. In Page 11, subsection (1) line 23 of the Bill as passed by Seanad Éireann, the words "or a harbour-master may detain a ship in his harbour" appear. These words should in fact be included after the second reference to "State" in line 24. This has now been done in the new subsection (1). The change does not affect the intended meaning of that subsection.
Amendment No. 6 was brought forward on the advice of the Attorney General. The effect of it is to make both the owner and the master of a ship detained under section 13 guilty of an offence if the ship leaves or attempts to leave any harbour or any other place otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The amendment also provides that the ship may be detained, or further detained, if it attempts to leave any place in the State after being stopped and detained, if it appeared that the owner of that ship had incurred a liability for pollution damage.
The object of amendment No. 7 is to ensure that ships which are neither registered in another Convention country nor the State carry on board a certificate showing that there is in force, in respect of the ship, a contract of insurance or other financial security which satisfies the law of either the Convention country concerned or the State, whichever is appropriate, relating to the bulk carriage of oil. Ships of non-Convention countries would, therefore, have to hold insurance cover up to the same level as Irish-registered ships or ships from other Convenion countries.
The object of amendment No. 8 is to make it clear that the provisions of section 34 relating to the detention of ships refer to an inspector or harbour master exercising the powers conferred on them by section 13 (3) or section 16. In the case of section 13 (3), a ship may be detained or be further detained if it attempts to leave any place in the State after being stopped and detained if it appeared that the owner of that ship had incurred a liability for pollution damage. As regards section 16, a ship may be stopped and detained at any place in the State if it attempts to leave in contravention of that section which provides that the master of the ship shall produce a certificate in relation to the existence of a contract of insurance in respect of his ship.
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to correct the omission of the word "may" which occurred during the printing of the Bill. The object of amendment No. 10 is to rectify an omission in the Bill.
Amendment No. 11 was brought forward on the advice of the Attorney General. Section 35 provides that when in respect of an offence under this Act, an order has been made detaining a ship, a district justice may, if satisfactory security is given, order the ship to be released pending the hearing of the charge against the ship. The object of this amendment is to make it clear that following the hearing of the charge, the fine, if any, and the costs of the trial may be paid to the Minister for the Marine out of the security lodged in court.
The object of amendment No. 12 is to provide that any director, manager, secretary or other official of a body corporate which committed an offence shall also be guilty of an offence in certain specified circumstances.
Amendment No. 13 was brought forward on the advice of the Attorney General. The intent of the new section 41 is the same as the existing section 41. Two changes were made in the new section 41 as follows: (i) the word "document" is used instead of the word "record"; (ii) reference to the "Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 to 1977" is included.
I commend these amendments to the Bill to this House.
A Chathaoirligh, I would like some clarification on a point you raised. You have indicated that a Member may speak only once on this question. I thought we would be taking it in sections. This is is the first time I have dealt with a Bill on Report Stage. As you said, this is a Seanad Bill which passed all Stages in the Seanad on 12 November. We are dealing today with the amendments recommended by the Dáil. Would it be appropriate for me to go through all the amendments and say what I think of them in one speech? Is that the procedure?
Yes.
We will proceed on those lines. I wish to make some comments on the amendments. We are all aware that the pressure for this Bill arose originally because we had a disaster involving the Kowloon Bridge. Around the same time we had a second near disaster involving the Capo Emma, an oil carrying cargo ship, which nearly went aground. This would have been several thousand times more serious than the Kowloon Bridge disaster, which was only leaking engine oil.
I accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2. They are technical amendments and they are necessary. I would like to ask a question about section 7, as amended. That section reads:
An owner of a ship shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under this section;
I would like to have some points on that section clarified. For example in the case of the Kowloon Bridge where that ship was losing engine oil, would the owner be liable, or would the Bill only apply to a ship carrying oil as cargo if the oil pollution was caused as a result of that? Does it cover both eventualities, or which eventuality does it cover? I am not clear on the purpose of inserting “for pollution damage” in the subsection.
You will have to bear with me, a Chathaoirligh, because some of these technical amendments alter greatly the original intention of the Bill as passed by this House and some of them make it more clear.
As you know, the Minister is a very patient man.
In section 12 (4) (b) line 16 after "Bank" to insert "of Ireland". I cannot see the word "Bank" in line 16. Line 16 reads: "which the pollution damage occurred and not later than six years after" and continues on line 17 "the date of the incident which occasioned the damage:"
I think you are reading the wrong copy of the Bill. You should have the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann. You have the old Seanad Bill in front of you.
That is all right. It is only a technical amendment as well.
Section 7 deals with insurance. Is there any limit on the size of the ships covered in this Bill? As larger ships are now in fashion does that liability insurance cover up to any limit? I would like to pose a question about the proposed amendment to section 13. Does it make provision for ships in distress that come into ports? Would it have any effect on the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906? Under marine law this Act allowed ships in distress to come into port for shelter and for repair. Could they be arrested or held for doing this? Does the section, as amended, make any difference to that situation? Amendment No. 8 to section 34 reads:
In page 22, lines 39 to 41, "Whenever an inspector, in exercise of his powers under this Act, or a harbour-master, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 16," deleted and "Whenever an inspector or a harbour-master, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 13 (3) or section 16," substituted.
What would happen in a case where a ship was in the jurisdiction of a harbour and for any reason, damage or otherwise, it started to break up? What powers would the harbour master have in that case? Is pollution caused by a ship starting to break up covered under this section? Would that have any bearing on section 34, as amended? The remaining amendments were recommended by the Attorney General for technical or legal reasons.
I welcome the amendments. I would call it progressive legislation. In particular I welcome amendment No. 3 which deals with liability for pollution damage. This is most important at present when we are trying to keep our natural resources, our seas and our rivers, pollution free. The Minister will be introducing the new Estuarial Development Bill. I am delighted that this legislation will help to keep our natural resources free from pollution. I come from the Shannon region where we have large industrial development. I am glad to say it is pollution free. I welcome this progressive legislation.
I join with the previous speaker in complimenting the Minister and the other House on the amendments. Obviously these points were referred to a very substantial degree when the Bill came before this House on a previous occasion.
I have one question in relation to section 7 which basically refers to the responsibility for ships whether we are a Convention country or outside that arrangement. When the Minister is replying he might clarify what would happen where a ship had no determined owner either inside or outside the Convention countries. In a number of places along the coast there are coasters which have been abandoned effectively in the various ports. They are causing pollution on an on-going basis. However, the Bill refers to specifically pollution of the type caused by the Betelgeuse disaster in Bantry and the Kowloon Bridge. I am referring specifically to coasters and small craft which have been abandoned. The companies that owned them at some time in the past have disappeared into the night. I could instance specific ports where the problem is very acute at present, in south Kerry and in parts of west Cork. I am not referring just to visual pollution but pollution on an on-going basis. For example the Ranga beach in west Kerry is polluted on a daily basis. The owners of the abandoned vessels appear to have just walked away from their responsibilities. I understand from Kerry County Council debates that nobody has had a successful mechanism at his disposal up to now to address this problem.
I wonder whether it is provided for in any subsection of this Bill, which appears to be extremely comprehensive. On reading through it I could find no other reason why an owner or a master of a ship could get out under the wire and shirk his responsibilities. The Minister and his draftsmen are to be complimented on getting it right. I have not found any provision for that aspect of the discussion, but the Minister might refer to it when replying.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The problem is that we can discuss amendments made by the Dáil only.
It relates to section No. 7.
I want to make the same observations as Senator O'Callaghan on section 7. I want to refer to Senator McCormack's initial remarks. This legislation goes back over a number of years. I think it was in the late sixties that it was first introduced. It was not an occurrence or event of late which brought forward this legislation. I hope we are bringing it to a close today.
I join with my colleagues in complimenting the Minister and his team on the fine legislation before us today — progressive legislation which is well thought out and well planned. It takes account of what we in Ireland have to offer compared to many other countries in the world. We are the envy of most other countries throughout the world because of our pollution free water and air. It is extremely important, in view of the developments in technology that this legislation maintains all our safeguards intact. We have only to look at Dublin Bay, Cork Harbour, the Shannon Estuary, all these places have to be protected by the Department of the Marine, and by the Minister and his officials. While I have said some tough things about the Department of the Marine in the past, I now compliment the Minister and say, "well done".
The Bill implements a number of infrastructural conventions in relation to the bulk carriage of oil. The main thrust of the Bill is to make it obligatory for oil tankers to be insured against oil pollution damage which they might cause. A back up compensation fund financed by contributions from the oil tanker people is available to meet claims which, for one reason or another, are not covered by the ship owners' insurance. That is important and valid. I do not want to hold up the legislation any longer. I welcome the Bill.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to all the Senators for their helpful and constructive comments. I will deal with the points raised by Senator McCormack. We are talking about bulk carriers of oil. The legislation covers both the oil carried in the bulk carrier and any bunker oil or other oil associated with it. In relation to size, ships of all sizes are covered; all sizes of bulk tanker carriers are covered. There is a limit in the overall Convention. There is a fund which, as Senator Cassidy pointed out, is contributed to by the various organisations involved. The insurance cover together with the availability of the fund will ensure that any damage is fully covered. In the final analysis the owners will be responsible in the event of that arising.
Points were raised on section 13 (1) about whether ships in distress or otherwise which cause pollution are covered under this legislation. They can be detained. If a ship creates pollution, whether in distress or otherwise, it can be detained under this legislation.
Section 34 deals with the potential for criminal offences. Pollution caused by a ship breaking up is also covered under section 13 (1) and section 7. We are dealing here specifically with criminal offences arising from incidents of this nature. The actual pollution offence is covered under the other sections I have dealt with already.
I thank Senators Kiely and Cassidy for their very helpful comments. In the Department of the Marine we are endeavouring to bring our maritime legislation into line with international conventions and into line with developments taking place within the Community and internationally. We are working on a number of measures which are designed specifically to bring our national legislation into line with international and Community legislation. I am satisfied that we will have further legislation at a very early stage.
I will deal now with the point Senator O'Callaghan raised. This legislation deals with oil tankers. I propose to introduce new legislation to deal with the problems the Senator had described. We have already some measures in the course of preparation. I will take the views expressed by the Senator into account. We have already been made aware of this because of our experience of the Kowloon Bridge affair and because of the situation in other areas where we find, for one reason or another, hazards we would like to eliminate. In the new legislation we are framing we will attend specifically to the points raised by the Senators.
We would like to bring our maritime legislation into line with the 20th century. Unfortunately, some of the legislation in operation at present is archaic, out-of-date and is not capable of responding to present day circumstances and opportunities. In the maritime legislation alone you are probably talking about 1,000 sections, or thereabouts, of very complicated legislation, designed in different centuries to meet different situations.
The rationale behind the establishment of the Department of the Marine was to tackle and deal with issues of this nature. We have already taken some steps in introducing the legislation at present before Senators. As I have already indicated, we have a number of other very important measures which, I hope, will be coming before the Seanad in due course. This will tidy up the area of our maritime legislation.
On behalf of the officials in the Department of the Marine and myself I wish to express our deep appreciation of the constructive approach shown this afternoon to this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.