Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Apr 1998

Vol. 155 No. 4

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods)

This is very important legislation. It triples the compensation for fishermen, fish farmers, tourism interests, local authorities and other affected parties for damage caused by oil pollution. It provides for compensation under tough new rules up to £195 million. This compensation will be paid for spillages. Our 7,800 kilometres of coastline and our unique geographical position at the hub of the transatlantic shipping routes make us particularly vulnerable to accidents involving ships transporting oil in the seas around Ireland. Our waters and shoreline must be protected from the catastrophic effects of oil pollution and particularly from major spillages on the scale of the Braer or the Sea Empress. The maximum compensation which will be available in the case of an oil tanker spillage will be tripled from £58 million to £195 million, depending on the circumstances. It will apply to all incidents in the 200 mile exclusive economic zone which Ireland may establish under international law as opposed to the 12 mile limit which applies now. Measures taken to prepare for an anticipated oil spillage will also be eligible for compensation even where no actual spillage of oil occurs. Where the source of the pollution cannot be identified, funding for clean-up operations may be available from the international oil pollution compensation fund. Ship owners will be obliged to have adequate insurance to cover liability. Liability for making compensation will rest primarily with the ship owner and will be supplemented, where necessary, by payments from the IOPC fund. Compensation will be payable for spills from tankers not carrying cargo.

I am determined to provide strong safeguards against damage to our beaches and other precious shoreline amenities. The deterrent effect of a threshold increase in the amount of compensation available for clean-up operations and damage will ensure that the maximum protection for our seas and the livelihoods of our coastal communities is provided. The new provisions for preventive measures to avert an anticipated pollution incident are essential to defend our coasts from serious damage.

The fund is maintained by oil importers transporting 150 tonnes of heavy or crude oil by sea per annum. There are three contributors in Ireland, the ESB, Aughinish Alumina and the INPC. This legislation shows the Government's commitment to protecting the marine environment. The protection of our valuable marine resource must be achieved through tough laws and the provision of a dependable infrastructure which will be prepared for and handle emergencies both actual and potential.

I am particularly pleased that this Bill is being introduced in the Seanad and I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important subject. I look forward to hearing Senators' contributions.

My aim in introducing this Bill is to strengthen the law in relation to oil pollution. This Bill will bring the law governing compensation for pollution dmage by oil carried in tankers into line with current international Conventions. The new legislation will provide for threefold increases in the compensation payable to affected parties such as fishermen, fish farmers, tourism interests, local authorities and others for damage caused by oil. It will also provide for an improved legal regime for dealing with oil spills.

Ireland's geographical location at the apex of some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, particularly for the transportation of oil, leaves us vulnerable to the threat of pollution incidents. It is vital that our waters and shoreline are protected from the devastating effects of oil pollution, particularly where large spillages occur.

Senators will recall the Braer incident in the Shetlands in 1993 when about 84,000 tonnes of oil were spilled. Closer to home, the Sea Empress incident in Milford Haven in 1996 led to a spillage of about 72,000 tonnes of oil, the effects of which were felt as far away as Wicklow, Wexford, Waterford and Cork. These are massive releases of oil over a short period of time with serious implications for the marine environment.

As the Minister responsible for the marine resource I can assure the House of my commitment and that of the Government to a cleaner marine environment. This legislation will provide strong safeguards for our seas and coastal communities in the event of damage to our beaches and other shoreline amenities.

The Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Act, 1988 gives effect in Irish law to two international Conventions adopted by the International Marine Organisation and to their 1976 Protocols, namely: the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, commonly known as the Civil Liability Convention; and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, commonly known as the Fund Convention. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the 1988 Act in order to give effect in Irish law to two further Protocols amending these Conventions, both of which were adopted by the IMO in 1992.

The measures proposed provide for an increase in the maximum compensation payable in respect of any one incident from £58 million to £130.5 million and, in certain circumstances, where there are at least three adherent states to the revised Conventions with combined crude and fuel oil imports of at least 600 million tonnes, up to £195 million.

The new measures also provide for much wider scope in the application of the Conventions. Sea going vessels which are adapted for the carriage of oil as cargo will now be covered whereas only vessels specifically constructed for this purpose are covered under existing measures. Pollution damage caused by spills of oil from unladen tankers will be covered whereas only laden tankers are covered at present. The measures will extend our jurisdiction for oil pollution purposes from the present 12 mile limit to a distance of 200 miles and compensation will be payable for pre-spill preventive measures taken to avert an imminent danger of pollution damage. This is a more frequent occurrence and preventive measures are essential.

The Civil Liability Convention obliges owners with an oil cargo capacity of more than 2,000 tonnes to maintain insurance cover for their liability for oil pollution damage.

The Civil Liability Convention obliges owners of tankers with an oil cargo capacity of more than 2,000 tonnes to maintain insurance cover for their liability for oil pollution damage. Tankers must carry on board a certificate issued by their flag administration attesting the insurance cover of the ship. Under existing arrangements the limit of a shipowner's liability is about £13.6 million irrespective of the size of the ship. Under the new measures proposed in the Bill, this limit is being raised to £58 million for a ship exceeding 140,000 tonnes. A new limit of about £2.9 million will apply to small ships of less than 5,000 tonnes and ships between 5,000 and 140,000 tonnes will be liable for pollution damage for amounts between £2.9 million and £55 million, depending on their actual tonnage.

The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, known as the IOPC fund, operates within the framework of the conventions, establishing a legal regime for supplementary compensation for pollution damage. The IOPC fund was established by the IMO to supplement the level of compensation available from shipowners under the Civil Liability Convention.

Under existing arrangements the shipowner can apply to the IOPC fund for indemnification for part of his liability. This facility has proved to be a cause of delays and the cost of processing claims has taken a significant share of the fund's resources. Indemnification by the fund is now withdrawn so that shipowners will have to pay their full liability as assessed in each case. This change is really the application of the "polluter pays" principle, to which I am committed. The resources thus saved by the IOPC fund will provide for the increased levels of compensation for pollution damage which are proposed, while at the same time keeping the levels of payment of the fund contributors under control.

There are, at present, 76 member states, including Ireland, participating under the civil liability and fund conventions. On 16 May next 24 of these states, including Ireland, will become members of the new regime to which the 1992 protocols give effect and which is commonly referred to as the 1992 fund. It is vitally important that Ireland is in a position to apply the new arrangements by 16 May and I ask for the co-operation of Senators in progressing this Bill as speedily as possible.

The 1992 fund will be viable and able to meet all obligations of the new measures because the membership, while still small, includes most of the large industrial states of the world which, of course, are the largest contributors to the IOPC fund. Annual contributions to the international compensation fund are levied by the fund administration on oil importers in member states who have imported, by sea, more than 150,000 tonnes of oil in the previous calendar year. There will be no change in this system under the new regime. Three importers in Ireland are liable for contributions to the fund.

The size of annual contributions will vary according to the amount of oil eligible for levy and the number and size of claims settled in any one year. The total annual contribution made by the Irish importers up to now is in the region of £80,000. While it is not possible to estimate accurately the effects of the new regime on current levels of contributions, it is likely they will not be greatly exceeded.

I have examined the sections of the 1988 Act not being amended by the Bill and find that they are adequate and operating satisfactorily. Two sets of regulations are in force under sections 16 and 19 relating to insurance certification for Irish registered ships and returns and contributions by Irish contributors to the IOPC fund, respectively. Since the 1992 protocols do not amend these sections, amending the regulations will involve little more than a change in title. Likewise, section 40, which provides for penalties for offences with regard to these regulations as well as the provisions for the detention of ships under section 13 and the powers of inspectors and harbour masters under sections 32 and 33, are adequate and in no need of change.

Within the wider context of my programme for the protection of the marine environment, this Bill may be seen as one of a number of important measures which have been introduced recently or are currently in preparation. Last month the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, known as the OSPAR Convention, came into operation. The Dumping at Sea Act, 1996 enabled Ireland to ratify the OSPAR Convention and put in place important provisions for the protection of the marine environment. Specifically, it extended the limit of Irish control in relation to dumping from 12 miles to 200 miles and in some areas up to 350 miles off the Irish coast, depending on the extent of our continental shelf. It also applied strict limitations on the types of substances which may be disposed of at sea and imposed a ban on incineration at sea and the dumping of radioactive wastes and toxic, harmful or noxious substances.

Last December I updated the regulations, made under the Sea Pollution Act, 1991, which give effect to the IMO's International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as the MARPOL Convention. The updated regulations provide for the control and prevention of pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances carried by tankers and garbage. At the same time, I introduced a new set of MARPOL regulations for the control of the carriage at sea of harmful substances in packaged form.

The Government is committed to taking all possible steps to protect the public from dangers associated with the nuclear industry, and I wish to refer to two important initiatives I have undertaken since becoming Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. Last November, I addressed the 20th Assembly of the IMO on the subject of the INF code, which governs the transport by sea of irradiated nuclear fuels. I pressed the assembly to agree that the code be adopted as a mandatory binding code by all IMO member states and I am pleased that agreement was reached on making the code mandatory. I regard this as a significant step forward in improving the conditions under which nuclear materials are transported by sea, but I will continue my efforts to bring about further improvements in this area.

Last year I also established a task force on radioactive dumping. The task force was set up in the wake of revelations by the UK authorities that nuclear waste had been dumped in the Beaufort Dyke, between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and at a number of other locations around the coast of the UK during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The Government viewed these revelations with great concern and I immediately travelled to London to discuss the matter with the UK Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dr. Jack Cunningham MP. I am pleased to say that I have received the fullest co-operation from the UK authorities on this matter.

The task force was asked to review and assess the information becoming available on the dumping of radioactive materials and, based on this review, to advise on survey, monitoring and management measures to ensure maximum protection for our marine resources and to restore public confidence in the quality of the marine environment. I expect to receive the report of the task force shortly and I intend to publish it in due course.

In relation to Sellafield, I welcome the commitment given by the UK Government to reduce discharges into the Irish Sea. The risks to the Irish public and to the environment posed by discharges from Sellafield are wholly unacceptable. The Government is committed to continuing its campaign against Sellafield and has established a ministerial committee on Sellafield and on radiological protection generally, on which my Department is represented by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Hugh Byrne.

I will shortly introduce another measure which is closely related to the measures proposed in this Bill. This is the Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention, 1990, known as the OPRC Convention, which is designed to ensure that proper arrangements are in place in each member state to deal with emergencies arising from spillages of oil at sea. It calls for member states to have a major national emergency plan ready to deal with major spillages and to co-operate with IMO and adjoining states in planning for and dealing with oil pollution incidents. Amendment of the Sea Pollution Act, 1991, which is required to provide for this measure in Irish law is already in hand. In the meantime, I am glad to say that while waiting for our accession to the OPRC convention the Irish Marine Emergency Service of my Department is already implementing its important features.

I also intend to give effect in Irish law to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996, which is commonly known as the HNS Convention. This is along similar lines to the regime for oil pollution damage which is the object of this Bill, and will be a welcome addition to our marine environment protection measures. Primary legislation, which is required for our accession to the HNS Convention, is in the course of being drafted and I expect to be in a position to introduce a Bill later this year.

This Bill introduces important new measures to deal with oil pollution. It will enable Ireland to be in a position to avail of the maximum levels of compensation for dealing with imminent threats of oil pollution damage and for recovering compensation where damage actually occurs. It is evidence of this Government's continuing commitment to protecting our marine environment, which all parties will support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Caffrey

I welcome the Minister's contribution. He is making a serious effort to protect the State from the implications of oil spillage and pollution. However, while it is great to hear that we may be protected from the financial implications of oil spillages in certain areas, the emphasis should be on the prevention of pollution.

The main thrust of the Bill should be to protect the State and the taxpayer from the implications of article 3(2)(c) of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage which states "No liability for pollution damage shall attach to the owners of a floundered ship if it can be proved that the damage is the result of negligence of a Government or an agency responsible for the maintenance of navigational aids". The Swedish Government was successfully sued a few years ago by the owners of a Russian tanker which ran aground due to an error in the Swedish navigational chart, which was declared by the courts to be a navigational aid.

The Minister did not touch on this area whereby the determination of liability could be transferred to a court in the event of a ship floundering in our waters as a result of faulty navigational aids or out of date chart data. The last up to date charting of our waters was carried out by the British Admiralty 150 years ago. It would be interesting to know where a court would decide the liability lay if a ship floundered in uncharted waters. The Minister has not addressed that issue. I am not certain the Government and the State would be safe in such an eventuality.

There is a pressing need to undertake a modern hydrographic survey for the safety implications of navigation in Irish waters. We do not have a hydrographic service. As I said, all our navigational data was collected by the British Admiralty, which has had no responsibility here since the 1920s.

This Bill may go some way towards protecting us from the financial implications of an oil spillage but a major oil spillage would be a political and environmental debacle. We must see what can be done in that area. The emphasis should be on preventing such spillages.

Making our waters safer for navigational purposes must be a priority. There is an urgent need to update our chart data. A modern hydrographic survey of all our coastal waters should be undertaken. The threat to the marine environment from an accident at sea is very real. There are numerous cases of ships deliberately releasing oily ballast water.

There is serious concern over ships operating in Irish waters under flags of convenience. There is a strong belief the crews on these vessels have little regard for maritime regulations designed to protect the environment. Flags of convenience vessels distort fair competition because, by and large, they disregard safety conditions and often employ poorly trained seafarers.

The European fleet is currently under enormous pressure from flags of convenience. The European fleet comprised 30 per cent of the world fleet in 1975 but has now declined to less than 15 per cent. This has resulted in a strong drive towards cheap labour and low cost national crews.

More stringent rules should be introduced to ensure all safety criteria are met and crews are fully trained and versed in emergency procedures. There should be strong policing of flags of convenience to ensure maintenance of international standards and compliance with ILO conventions. The Government should lobby the EU to extend the use of port State control inspections to try to eliminate substandard and flags of convenience vessels and to ensure the ILO conventions are enforced at all times. The condition of many vessels operating around our coast and entering Irish ports gives rise for concern. We should have a regional inspectorate to monitor ships entering Irish ports and to ensure their compliance with safety and other standards to prevent pollution.

Another factor is the low level of training of many foreign nationals working on passenger and other cargo vessels, which poses a danger to the safe operation of ships. There is a need to establish minimum training levels and standards and to insist on work permits for the employment of extra European nationals on EU registered vessels.

Port operations frequently involve the handling of hazardous cargoes. This is part of their work on an everyday basis. With regard to training and other procedures, there is probably much laxity in the implementation of inspections.

There should be a total review of the implications of flags of convenience, the use of protective registers and the establishment of a European inspectorate which would inspect vessels with regard to the technical and social provisions of international agreements. In addition, the concept of port state control should be extended to provide a coastal state control where vessels passing through EU waters would be subject to the same standards as vessels entering other ports.

A comprehensive training programme should be devised for commercial carriers to heighten all crew awareness, to encourage their proficiency and to prevent disasters occurring. The total focus should be on the prevention of disasters. While we can deal with the financial implications of disasters, the Celtic tiger has not yet developed the ability to drink oil, especially on troubled waters.

My county has a huge coastline and is surrounded by water. Methods of coastal erosion have changed and developed. Hard options, such as sea walls, are less in use while softer options, such as beach nourishment and planned retreats, are preferred. There is an urgent need to understand all the prevailing coastal processes. Much can be learned from the experiences of the UK and especially the Netherlands with regard to strategies to cope with coastal erosion. Recently the Danish and Spanish authorities have introduced new legislation which recognises the integrity of the coastal zone and integrates coastal protection with environmental protection and a system of national, regional and local planning.

The adoption of shore line management requires some functional changes in the underlying theories and philosophy of coastal management. These changes can be undertaken gradually, following an evolving framework. In addition, they would need to integrate closely with parallel developments taking place in the broad context of coastal zone management.

The UK guidelines for sustainable coastal defence policies defines sustainable schemes as ones which:

. take account of the interrelationships with other defences, developments and processes within a catchment or coastal cell or subcell and which avoid, as far as possible, tying future generations into inflexible and expensive options for defence.

Recent changes have been characterised by rising sea levels, unconstrained by the existing patterns of development. A sustainable approach in this area would involve allowing the coastline to establish its natural position. These would have inevitable consequences, including the abandonment of dwellings and other buildings on the coast and perhaps the loss of farmland and infrastructure.

At the other extreme is the policy to defend at any cost, where defences would be constructed or modified to provide existing levels of protection, regardless of the changing sea level. One only has to travel around the coastline, especially in my county, Mayo to see continuing levels of erosion every year. It now falls to the Minister and his Department to realise the extent of this problem and to introduce dramatic, constructive and imaginative policies to safeguard it. Shoreline management strategy should seek to meet these agreed objectives by first defining the possible courses of action. These include maintaining the existing line and other areas of coastal zone management.

Where private property is to be protected from coastal erosion, the introduction of a grant scheme to subsidise action is necessary. There is equally a need for an emergency fund which could be accessed by county councils to fund storm and other emergency repairs. Every winter there is increasing evidence of massive storm damage, including serious erosion and land slides along our coasts, yet there is no emergency fund to deal with this. On every occasion we must seek special assistance from the Government to take people and areas out of disaster zones.

Civil engineers who have been traditionally involved in the design of coastal engineering works have focused their approach more on harm protection operations. Training needs to be provided to enable them understand the dynamics of the coastal zone. Soft engineering options can also be designed. Recently in County Mayo, engineers designed a coastal protection scheme for a small part of the coast. However, the price was astronomical and could not have been considered by the county council.

Civil engineers, especially in the marine section, and marine science have a part to play, including work on oil pollution, protection of the environment and coastal erosion. Indeed, marine science is probably underrated at present. For example, there is no hydrographic survey in the country. I ask the Minister to place a greater emphasis on this area and to perhaps establish dynamic agencies. Many new ideas are required.

Chart data needs to be updated because major vessels operate in waters which were charted 150 year ago. There is a potential for disaster here. The liability in such cases would be questionable. While the Bill provides for insurance, it should be noted that insurance companies can transfer their liability to the courts. Do the provisions go so far as to protect us from every possible catastrophe on our coastline? We must continue to hope and pray that nothing of major significance will occur off our coasts. The Minister has made an effort to protect the State in many respects from the financial implications of the types of disaster which could become a reality overnight.

Mr. Bonner

This is the fourth time the Minister has attended the House since we first sat last September. I regret I was unable to be present when he last attended due to other commitments. On that occasion the House discussed the vital role of the fishing industry and sustaining Ireland's coastal communities. The House supported the Minister's continuing efforts to safeguard the livelihood of our fishermen and to develop the industry to its full potential.

This Bill is also very important in terms of protecting our fishing industry and potential losses to those who derive their livelihoods from the seas. I understand that on the last occasion the Minister was here he was accused by the other side of the House of not doing enough to help the marine sector in the north-west and to exploit the great wealth and job creation potential in the areas of marine tourism and leisure and marine food processing. I assure the Minister he is highly respected in my part of the north west for his efforts on behalf of the industry and for the work he did on the last occasion he was Minister in this Department. I refer in particular to the white fish fleet renewal scheme announced in the Finance Bill, the proposed grant scheme for the renewal of this fleet and the securing of over 5,000 additional tonnage for the regularisation of licences for many small fishermen.

I also congratulate the Minister on his work in Brussels before Christmas at the negotiations on the horse mackerel quotas. The same determination from him will ensure that the Common Fisheries Policy, when it is being renegotiated in the lead up to 2002, will ensure that the industry gets its fair share, something which was sold out for other gains when the last CFP was negotiated. I am sure the Minister is aware of the difficulties encountered by the processing industry in Killybegs, particularly during March and April of this year.

On his last visit to the House, the Minister stated that his strategic objective was to enhance the safety and competitiveness of the fleet and the quality of landings to maximise supply through the full and effective take up of available quotas and to develop non-quota fishing opportunities. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to the north west, to Burtonport and other ports, in the next month.

This is the first opportunity I have had to pay tribute to the late Hugh Coveney who, as Minister for the Marine, visited the Donegal fishing ports within one week of taking office. He impressed all the fishermen and seafaring people he met as a man of the sea and was extremely knowledgeable on all marine matters. It was ironic he lost his life to the sea and I wish to offer my condolences and those of the constituency I represent.

Ireland is endowed with a long coastline and a largely healthy and unpolluted marine and coastal environment. Our marine coast alone is a valuable resource in its own right and it is also an important location for a range of economic activities and recreational uses. Over 90 per cent of our territory is under water. In the past year we have had to implement stringent European directives in relation to special areas of conservation on dry land. We must ensure the same conservation of our marine environment and protect our fishing grounds, our natural and clean beaches, our aquaculture farming of salmon, oysters and mussels, our mariculture farming of clams, crayfish and lobsters and the wild bird habitats along our coastline. The high quality of our marine environment is an important element of Ireland's natural endowment. Protection of this environment must be a key element of our overall marine policy.

The Minister's Department wishes to preserve and protect the quality of our marine environment by protecting the overall marine eco system, maintaining the highest standards and quality of our marine waters, by preventing pollution at sea and by providing a rapid response to pollution incidents in order to minimise damage. A way to do this is to enact this legislation to enable Ireland to ratify the 1992 protocols adopted by the International Maritime Organisation to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, both as amended by the respective 1976 protocols. The adoption of the two protocols will substantially enhance our access to compensation under both conventions. The Minister said 76 states, including Ireland, are party to both conventions and that by 16 May, up to 24 will have acceded to the new IMO protocols.

Ireland's extensive coastline makes it particularly vulnerable to accidents involving ships transporting oil in its territorial waters. Our waters and shoreline must be protected from the devastating effects of oil pollution. This new legislation will introduce tough new laws on oil pollution at sea and will provide substantial increases in compensation payable to affected parties, such as fishermen, fish farmers, tourism interests, local authorities and others for damage caused by oil pollution.

The Bill also provides for an improved legal regime to deal with oil spills. The definition of pollution damage in this Bill is more restrictive than previously so as to obviate extravagant claims for loss of future profits by aggrieved interests, which in the past has given rise to delays and higher costs in resolving claims. Section 3 provides for the widening of the scope of application to cover sea going vessels adapted for the carriage of oil and bulkless cargo. It will apply to all incidents in the 200 miles exclusive economic zone which Ireland may establish in accordance with international law as opposed to the 12 mile limit which applied until now. Measures taken to prepare for an anticipated oil spill will also be eligible for compensation even where no spillage of oil occurs. Pollution damage caused by spills of oil from unladen tankers will be covered as previously laden tankers only were covered.

The Bill provides for the improvement in the provisions of two previous conventions which obliged owners of ships carrying oil and bulkless cargo to have appropriate insurance to cover liability of a specified amount for oil pollution damage. It also provides for the establishment of an international fund from which to supplement the amounts of compensation for oil pollution where ship owners' liability is exceeded. The IOPC fund is maintained by oil importers paying levies for transporting amounts in excess of 150,000 tonnes of heavy or crude oil per annum.

Section 6 provides for higher limits of ship owner's liability. A ship in excess of 140,000 tonnes needs insurance cover of £58 million. Ships between 5,000 and 140,000 tonnes require cover of between £2.9 million and £58 million and ships under 5,000 tonnes require cover of £2.9 million. The previous maximum cover required was approximately £13.6 million, irrespective of the size of the ship. Section 11 provides maximum compensation payable by the fund in the case of oil tanker spillage of up to £195 million. The previous amount was £58 million.

The measures introduced in the Bill will provide strong safeguards for our seas and coastal communities in the event of damage to our beaches and other amenities. Raising the amounts of compensation payable for clean-up operations ensures the maximum protection of our valuable natural resources. We have been fortunate in that we have not to date had any major disaster due to oil pollution, such as that which occured in Milford Haven in 1996 when the Sea Empress ran aground. We also remember the destruction of wildlife off the Shetland Islands in 1993 when the Braer broke up spilling 84,000 tonnes of oil into the sea. The break-up of the Kowloon Bridge in 1987, when this bulk carrier broke up on rocks off the south west coast, reminds us that a catastrophe could occur along our coastline.

The arrival of the Norwegian tanker, the Prospect, in Bantry Bay last week with 70,000 tonnes of crude oil reminds us of the explosion there 20 years ago killing 51 people and warns us of the danger of supertankers again having access to the Whiddy Island oil terminal. We are solely dependent on oil imports. However this may not be the position in the future and I welcome the Minister's announcement earlier this week that the exploitation potential of the waters off the west coast for oil and gas reserves will be boosted by the development of a specialised data bank.

The hydrocarbon potential of areas, such as the south Porcupine frontier, for which licences will be issued in 1999, have never been fully quantified due to the limited data available. The Minister recently launched the petroleum infrastructure programme, the PIP, involving 16 oil companies with exploration licences in the Rockall Trough. This is a major data gathering initiative to obtain vital information about that area. If a substantial amount of oil is found off the west coast we do not have the proper infrastructure on shore to deal with it. Last July, when speaking about the major study carried out by Coopers and Lybrand on the infrastructural needs of Killybegs harbour, the Minister stated that immense potential exists for its development, not just as Ireland's premier fishing port but as a major service centre for the fishing, tourism, transport and oil exploration industries. He added that the existing facilities are catering for vessels with displacements far in excess of design capacities, and berthage and depth levels in the harbour are insufficient to meet demand. Sufficient service industries to the fishing industry have been developed over the years to cater for the demands of the oil exploration companies and they have expressed their preference for Killybegs as a service area for any future oil exploration off the north-west and west coasts. The Minister is fully supportive of this development and he needs the support of his Cabinet colleagues if finance is to be made available from the Exchequer or through a tax incentive investment scheme, which I mentioned in the debate on the Finance Bill.

Substantial investment is needed in many harbours and ports if catastrophic shipping accidents are to be avoided. I refer specifically to the dredging of Burtonport and Killybegs harbours. At Easter 1992 the vessel Victor ran aground at McSwyne's Bay in Killybegs. Due to the swift action of the Department of the Marine, as it was then, a serious oil spillage was avoided. We may not be so lucky on the next occasion.

Another aspect of accidents at sea is the safety of crews on vessels and tankers. I compliment the RNLI for the service it provides to all seafaring people. I am particularly proud of the life saving record at sea of my local lifeboat station on Arranmore Island. However, this station is to lose its promised Severn class lifeboat for a smaller vessel if a definite decision is not made within the next three to four weeks about the dredging of Burtonport harbour. I hope to discuss this matter with the Minister privately.

The Minister also mentioned the task force on radioactive dumping, which was set up in the wake of revelations by the UK authorities that nuclear waste was being dumped in the Beaufort dyke between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whatever about the territorial claim to the North, we in Donegal are conscious of our territorial waters and the dangers which exist there. I am glad the Minister expects to receive the report shortly and intends to publish it.

Senator Caffrey mentioned coastal erosion. Like Mayo, Donegal has a long coastline stretching from Derry city to Tullaghan outside Bundoran. We have some of the finest scenery, beaches, golf facilities and related tourism provisions in the country but our coastline has suffered serious erosion in the past ten to 15 years. In conjunction with the University of Ulster at Coleraine, Donegal County Council has begun a process including scientific studies, an environmental impact assessment and the preparation of a management plan. The problem is that finance will not be available for it and I trust that the Minister will do his utmost to ensure proper funding is made available from Europe or the Exchequer to ensure that whatever is required to stop coastal erosion is put in place. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Walsh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire chun an Bille tábhachtach seo a phlé. This is important legislation which will protect our coastline and estuaries. Senator Bonner mentioned the damage caused by the Kowloon Bridge and the Minister mentioned the Sea Empress, which discharged 72,000 tons of oil into the sea at Milford Haven and which had a serious effect on our eastern and southern coast, not least on my county, Wexford. But for benign weather conditions at the time it could have been a much more serious disaster and affected the ecology and environment to a far greater extent.

Oil is carried in small tankers and supertankers, many of which are quite old, so there is a considerable risk to the environment. We must consider how to police this, because not only are these tankers visiting our ports but the major oil installation at Milford Haven holds considerable potential risks also.

Not to be upstaged by Senator Caffrey and Senator Bonner, and lest the Minister be left with the wrong impression, coastal erosion is a major issue in Wexford at Cahore, Ballyconnigar, Rosslare and Cullenstown. There have been debates at county council level and many meetings with the Minister's predecessors. The Minister of State is familiar with our ongoing problems. It occurs around the country but we are particularly susceptible and it needs considerably more resources than have been made available in the past. Efforts have been made to have it recognised at EU level as requiring financial assistance. I urge the Minister to do what he can in that regard.

The Bill is significant. Its principal provisions broaden the scope of legislative coverage from purpose-built tankers to those adapted for the carriage of oil. That is a sensible and worthwhile provision because adapted vessels may be more susceptible to problems than purpose built ones. The provision to extend our territorial remit from a 12 mile zone to a 200 mile zone is essential for the control of this problem, because a spillage can affect a far wider area than 12 miles and we need to be able to take precautionary and supervisory measures further afield. The Bill also extends cover to unladen tankers. There have been incidents where, perhaps through a mistake on the part of the vessel's crew when deballasting, unladen vessels have discharged into rivers or the sea, which can have a major effect.

I welcome the redefinition of pollution damage, particularly the provision which obviates people's propensity to inflate claims when an incident occurs. A business colleague told me about a former co-operative manager whose premises burned down during the war. One of the junior clerks prepared the bill for submission to the insurance company. The manager, who was a wily old fox and a well known local character, added a nought to the end of the claim figure and told the clerk it was easy to see he knew nothing about insurance claims.

The temptation to maximise recovery should not be forgotten. It is important realistic claims are submitted because the cost of pollution control is extremely high and requires no additional inflationary factors. The main provision is the increase in the maximum level of compensation from the IOPC fund from £58 million to £195 million. There is also provision for a new level of liability for smaller vessels of £2.9 million. That is all very welcome.

I pay tribute to and compliment the Minister for his recent initiatives in the control of nuclear materials, especially his success in having the INF code adopted as mandatory. More important for us was his initiative in establishing the task force on radioactive dumping. Without doubt, the carelessness and lack of responsibility with which nuclear waste has been disposed is a matter of great shame to this generation. We are creating pollution and a risk for future generations for thousands of years to come and not just for those immediately following. If that is to be our legacy, we will be forever condemned by future generations for failing to take appropriate measures. The setting up of this task force on radioactive dumping is one of the first steps in ensuring this issue is tackled effectively.

The Irish Sea is an area of major concern to us and should be of major concern internationally. The irresponsibility with which the Sellafield nuclear station has been managed and its waste materials disposed of has been a matter of great concern and regret for a long time. Its effects not just on marine life but also on human life is one of the Minister's major priorities and that is welcome. We look forward to the publication of the report of the task force and I hope we will have the opportunity to debate it in this House.

One issue which arises is the policing of the measures contained in the Bill. Another is ensuring shipping companies comply with the stipulation on the insurance cover required. I do not know what measures are envisaged to ensure that compliance. A simple procedure might be that the vessels would carry a certificate outlining the major conditions of their insurance cover and their limit of indemnity. Perhaps one of the tasks customs people could undertake when boarding vessels on behalf of the State would be to examine such certificates. Insurance is an area where it can be difficult to determine whether people are acting responsibly.

What is also as important is the precautionary measures and provisions to deal expeditiously and effectively with any spill. I welcome the fact that we are hoping to gain accession to the Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention, the OPRC Convention as it is called. I am glad to note the Department, while awaiting our accession to the convention, is implementing its important features. Prevention is always better than cure. I come from a port, New Ross, through which there are significant oil imports, and we have been fortunate there has never been an oil pollution incident of any significance, despite the fact we would have had many small coastal tankers discharging at the port on a regular and frequent basis. Given what has happened around our coast, we are conscious there is a need to have measures in place to ensure an adequate response in the event of an emergency.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and see it as another step forward in ensuring our coastline, which is a valuable asset of the State, is protected for the future.

Mr. Chambers

I support the Bill and welcome the Minister on this his third or fourth occasion in the House in the past seven or eight months. I welcome the Bill because it is a clear commitment by the Government to examine in its totality the resource of the sea. The interest shown by the Minister not alone in this regard but also in the development and protection of the resource in its totality is an indication of the Government's interest and commitment to the vast and enormous State resource. It is part of the overall development of a resource which can play an enormous part in the development of our communities, especially coastal ones. It is an asset of huge value to the welfare of the State and its people.

Sea law is a quagmire in terms of establishing liability and I welcome the manner in which this area is dealt with in the Bill because it introduces fines which are relevant to the present day and commensurate with the responsibility of those who use the sea. The Bill improves the law dealing with oil spills and responsibility for pollution. It defines responsibility, clarifies the law relating to it and outlines the range of fines applicable. Through this Bill and the different conventions, the responsibilities of those who use our seas as highways, often without care, are set out. It is important that the quality of the sea and of our beaches, especially on the west coast, is maintained, given that seaweed from there is eaten by many people and is often exported for consumption. This Bill will help strengthen the protections for these and will also protect the interests of the State.

The Bill updates the legal measures needed to protect the quality of the sea and of our natural resources on the western seaboard. It also substantially increases the fines applicable to the size of vessel and extends our responsibility from a 12 mile limit to a 200 mile one. This is very welcome. It places certain responsibilities on the State for policing and management. The Bill also clarifies the position of the Minister and the Government in their efforts to secure the responsibilities of local authorities for the maintenance and upkeep of places damaged by oil spills.

The Bill covers pollution damage caused by spills of oil from unladen tankers, whereas only laden tankers are covered at present; the measures will extend our jurisdiction for oil pollution purposes from the present 12 mile limit to a distance of 200 miles; and compensation will be payable for pre-spill preventative measures taken to avert an imminent risk of pollution damage. This is a responsible approach. The new policing measures will give the State, the Minister and local authorities the opportunity for better management and stronger powers to protect the marine resource. This will allay the fears of those who value this natural resource.

I welcome the Minister's moves in relation to the task force on radioactive dumping. Everyone is concerned about this issue. The Minister's decision to establish structures is indicative of his approach. This and other legislation relating to the marine indicates how much attention this area needed, therefore, this Bill is to be welcomed.

The Minister should examine the development of oil and natural gas resources off the west coast which can create great opportunities for the west, particularly in the counties close to those facilities. The Minister recently made an announcment on an evaluation process designed to indicate the importance of the sea in supporting coastal communities. He should examine the possibility of developing good sized harbours in County Mayo, such as Blacksod Bay, to service the industry and the exploration which is taking place along the coast. The west needs any benefits which can be obtained from the sea and the Minister should look at this in the context of the ongoing review.

This Bill makes a genuine effort to provide compensation for those dependent on the marine. There are substantial fish farming developments around the coast which are making a major contribution to our GNP and job creation in coastal communities. Fish farming can play an important role when carefully managed. It is a good example of the quality of the waters along the western seaboard and our rivers and is a valuable asset. Recent figures produced by the Marine Institute indicate the potential which exists and highlight the importance of developing effective measures to prevent pollution.

Oil importers will have to pay £80,000 in the event of pollution. I would not like to see anyone paying more than they should. However, when one considers the cost of the damage caused, £80,000 is very small in the context of the maritime organisation which has arranged this system. It is also very small in the context of the funding needed to underpin this Bill.

I commend this Bill. It is a positive step and one of many that the Minister has introduced to protect and develop our natural resources, in particular our fisheries and it is in the best interests of the people.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

The Minister has introduced a large number of changes to legislation concerning all aspects of the marine, from fisheries to pollution. Senator Caffrey was constructively critical of the Minister in the past but I am sure he will change his mind given the measures which the Minister has introduced over the past six to nine months.

I wish to endorse the comments of other Senators on oil pollution. This is a major disaster which could happen. I am glad money is being made available to prepare a response mechanism even if a disaster does not occur or there is no pollution.

The Harbours Bill was a good Bill which came before the House about two years ago. The Bill set out the conditions for the establishment of ten or 12 new ports. I proposed an amendment to the Bill which was accepted preventing any nuclear powered ship or any ship carrying nuclear waste from entering Irish harbours. The amendment was accepted not as I had written it but the eventual wording had the same effect. I am sure that all sides of the House would agree that the time has come for us to establish a nuclear free zone at least encompassing our 12 mile limit. We have no laws under which we can take those responsible for Sellafield and similar institutions to court. It is similar to driving through a town that does not have a 30 mph limit; one is not breaking the law if one drives over 30 mph.

If the Irish Sea is polluted there is no legislation under which those responsible can be taken to court. We need a 12 mile nuclear free zone similar to that which protects our fisheries. The Minister should seriously consider introducing legislation which would ensure our waters, i.e., to the 12 mile limit or the centre of the Irish Sea on the east coast, are declared a nuclear free zone. Such legislation would be the most popular ever introduced.

There is great fear in Dublin, County Louth, down the coast to Wexford and even where I live about what might happen if something goes wrong in one of the British nuclear power stations. The nuclear power stations are so close that one can almost see them across the water. We saw the damage done by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, the surrounding land remaining barren to this day and probably destroyed forever. It is time we started to put bite in our legislation and pollution of the sea is a central issue.

This Bill concerns oil pollution, but the time has come for legislation establishing our exclusive 12 mile zone as a nuclear free area. This would protect our harbours, our people, etc., and we could bring those breaking the law to the European Court. There is no law at present and, therefore, no law can be broken. We have seen the damage caused throughout the world by oil pollution, the subject of this Bill.

Senator Caffrey spoke about updating charts. Over the years there have been different opinions. I regretted the automation of lighthouses as I felt the people working in them served a purpose. Boats have modern technology, including radar. It is possible to insert a small tape into a recorder allowing one to sit back in the knowledge that one's boat will follow a line set. Technology is such that even the average person who goes walking in the Wicklow Mountains can buy a small gadget for £200 or less which will pinpoint his or her exact location and give the direction in which they are going. There is even technology which allows a driver to insert into a car a small television screen which indicates the route, for example, across the city, by giving exact position, turns to be taken, etc.

I would like to see charts updated and there has been much work done in this area. With the technology which has been introduced over the past 30 or 40 years, most rocks, ledges and dangerous places have been fairly well recorded. However, there was an incident in Rosslare about eight or nine years ago which is relevant to the point raised by Senator Caffrey. Ferries have been using Rosslare for the past 50 or 60 years, but one ferry came across a previously undiscovered protruding, lone spike of rock, almost as thin as a microphone. The ferry on coming into the harbour struck or scraped off it, not realising it was there. This points to the fact that updating can always be undertaken and it is vital that we have proper charts.

I presume the east coast, but certainly the west coast, has considerable traffic. From my home I can see ships and boats day and night going past, between and outside the Blasket Islands depending on the weather. Boats and tankers are getting bigger and a responsibility attaches to huge tankers. However, we are not only concerned with tankers; an ordinary boat with a leakage in its fuel tanks can pollute half of west Kerry.

I have been told that boats, having deposited oil in Cork, Limerick or another oil terminal, fill their tanks with salt water on leaving so that the boat has proper ballast and an even weight. On entering the port to collect more oil, that water is pumped into the sea — there is nowhere else to pump it. The sea has been our saviour and everything we can think of ends up in it. We must protect it. We are very lucky that oil floats because, if it sank to the bottom of the sea, we would have wiped out the world years ago as everything would have been killed. Oil remains on top and is dispersed by wind and the motion of the sea.

I am worried about the EU regulations concerning ships entering our harbours which are due to be introduced. They may not be directly relevant to this Bill but they do concern pollution. Sludge, the normal refuse of a ship, may not be thrown overboard under the new legislation but must be kept on board until docking but on coming ashore there are no facilities whatever to deal with this in many places. The facilities in Foynes, which is doing a fairly big business, are up to date, but we had a few boats coming into Dingle — I do not wish to harp on Dingle as the Minister will say I think of nowhere else — and because we had to implement the law it was necessary to get personnel from the Department of Agriculture and Food to examine the situation. The sludge had to be pumped into a tractor container, taken to the countryside and deposited in a 12 foot hole dug by a JCB. The cost of dealing with this one ship cost approximately £400. At the same time, on the other side of the pier, a yacht can enter from any part of the world, dock and have two big bags brought from it and deposited in the county council rubbish dump. It is the same material, namely, rubbish from a boat. We kicked up about this issue in Dingle.

I am in favour of providing proper facilities. I monitor the yachts that come and go in the harbour. Thankfully, Ireland is becoming very popular for sailing and this will provide a big financial boost in terms of tourism. However, up to 60 per cent of yachts have facilities on board but there are no facilities when they dock to allow the pumping out of sludge.

I welcome the Bill but would like more time to study it. I also welcome the fact that penalties will be imposed. I hope we will never again experience a disaster or oil spillage near our shores. If we do, I hope the people responsible will be apprehended within hours and that the funding necessary for the clear-up will be paid in full.

In regard to past oil spillages, particularly that involving the Kowloon Bridge, can the Minister inform the House as to whether compensation was paid to the Irish Government?

I commend the Bill to the House and I understand there is agreement to take Committee and Final Stages.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods)

I thank Senators for their wideranging comments on the Bill. Ireland's extensive coastline makes it particularly vulnerable to accidents involving ships transporting oil in our territorial waters. I believe the Bill is a positive measure which will enable Ireland to participate in the best available liability and compensation regime for oil pollution damage. It is a major step which will provide a very strong safeguard and protection to our marine resources.

The Government is firmly committed to the proper management and protection of our marine environment but, as Senators have pointed out, a great deal of work remains to be done. This will be achieved through a blend of strong legislative control, comprehensive research and the provision of a solid infrastructure to deal with potential emergencies. The Bill and the measures it introduces clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to a cleaner marine environment.

Senator Caffrey spoke about the need for more data, better information, navigational aids and hydrographic surveys. The Marine Institute is carrying out some work in this area although it may not address all of the points raised by the Senator. I will follow up on his concerns. The Admiralty updates its charts from time to time but some areas remain unchartered and that issue must be pursued.

Senator Caffrey felt that low-paid, untrained seafarers posed real dangers and problems. This is a very real problem in the EU as a whole. The Senator pointed to the fact that the EU's share of the world fleet has decreased from 30 to 15 per cent. The number of seafarers has decreased even more dramatically and more vessels are taking on low cost workers who do not have the necessary training. I have set up a task force on training which will help to develop a programme in this area. Ireland is also suffering a large decline in the number of merchant seamen and mariners. Seafaring is a great tradition in Ireland and should be retained and re-established. That is one of the reasons I pressed for the seafarers' tax allowance which was included in the recent Finance Bill together with other measures which will put us on a greater par with our European colleagues to whom major tax concessions are available. These measures should help to improve matters considerably.

Senator Caffrey felt that pollution prevention and surveillance should be strengthened. This is being done through the IMES arrangement and Captain Liam Kirwan is particularly keen on that. Ireland is still quite under-resourced in this area but we are trying to improve matters. We will be seeking the inclusion of funds for this area in the next round of EU funds.

Port State control is one of the great controls open to a country. Senator Caffrey spoke about extending this to EU waters. Any vessels which come into our ports can be subjected to port State controls and these can be quite rigorous.

Senator Caffrey also raised the issue of coastal erosion which is one of the big problems being experienced in Ireland. The EU provided £1 million per annum for a period of five years to deal with this phenomenon. That may sound like a reasonable sum of money but it is not sufficient to deal with the problem of coastal erosion. Senators Caffrey, Walsh and Bonner were particularly concerned about coastal erosion as it is a major problem around Wexford on the east coast and along the west coast.

A coastal zone management report was put forward for consultation for a couple of months and a one day seminar was held recently to get feedback on it, in addition to the written submissions which were made. Those submissions are currently being considered. I hope to be able to produce a policy on coastal zone management in the near future and I hope we can highlight the issue at EU level in regard to funding. Senator Caffrey pointed out that where work was done in this area, the concerns of the engineers seemed extraordinary and the costs involved were very high. When one considers that some of the defences which are put in place are later found several miles down the coast, one begins to realise the real power of the sea and its ability to undermine almost anything. This is why the engineers are so concerned about the strength of the protection.

A certain approach may seem reasonable from the point of view of a local authority, but when the engineers dealing with marine matters examine it they will say that strong fortifications are required because of the dangers from the sea. More work is being done in that area by the Marine Institute. The Senator mentioned the need for an agency to do research in this area. The Marine Institute is developing well in that regard but this is a vast area with an enormous number of issues to be tackled.

Senator Bonner mentioned Killybegs. Killybegs is a marvellous port which is a huge part of our total provision, from the point of view of the fishing industry in particular, and it needs a great deal of attention. I am still working on the development of Killybegs and I share the Senator's view that it is an important location for offshore activity. I will be looking for a way to develop it along those lines. Unfortunately there is no funding available currently so we need to find a new way to deal with the problem, something to which I am giving my attention.

The Senator also mentioned the difficulties in dredging at Burtonport and the problems for the RNLI. I hope to be able to do something about that shortly. I will visit Burtonport even if I cannot make it to the other places at the same time. That is one of the difficulties which can arise with the extent of business in the House.

Coastal erosion and the resources to prevent it were also mentioned by Senator Bonner. I agree with him on that point and we will be examining this entire area. Senator Walsh was also concerned about coastal erosion, as I knew he would be, because the south east coast is vulnerable to erosion. There has already been a fair amount of investment but there is more to be done. We must look further afield at approaches to coastal erosion and the manner in which other resources can be used to defend the coastline. That requires more work as the current methods are expensive and time consuming.

Senator Walsh welcomed the mandatory INF nuclear fuels code. I want to pay tribute to the officials who worked on that with me. We do not realise the work which is done by our officials in the international arena in conjunction with Ministers and their teams. The recognition given to Irish ideas and the relationships built up by the staff, including those in the Department of Foreign Affairs, is very effective. The INF Conference in London was huge, yet it was possible for us to make our point and gain support early. That is good representation on the part of our officials. The Senator welcomed the task force's commissioning of a report on dumping and we hope to have that soon.

Senator Chambers welcomed the Bill and mentioned the work to be done. A great deal of that is currently under way. He expressed his concern about the protection of seaweed resources and fish farms. We do not want them destroyed. We are developing highly sophisticated marine industries and we must look after them. The Senator thought £80,000 was relatively low but we only have three companies in that business and the total cost is low if the preventative measures are good. Provided there are not too many of them, it is of little cost to the oil companies and major shippers of the world. We will seek to increase the prevention facilities.

The Senator was concerned about the possibility of exploration for oil and gas off the west coast and wanted to ensure that Mayo is considered for any offshore activities. It is likely there will be a good deal of exploration as the licences have been applied for and the areas have been allocated. Once they are allocated there is an obligation to do a certain amount of exploration at least.

Senator Fitzgerald pointed to the level of activity in the Department and the number of issues which are being tackled. It takes a Department some time to get going and, in my opinion, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is working well now. The strategic management plan will show the extent of that activity. There are many important areas to which we must give attention. They will come out clearly in the strategic management plan which will be laid before the House within the next week.

The question of negligence was raised by Senator Caffrey. This issue has given rise to problems in a number of pollution incidents in recent years. Shipowners may try to find a way of shifting liability for pollution away from themselves and this happens in all liability cases.

I am aware of two incidents off the coasts of Italy and Spain in recent years where negligence was admitted by the relevant authorities and liability was apportioned by the courts between the shipowners, the IOPC fund and the respective Governments. Again, the degree of negligence would be taken into consideration in these cases. Cases are now being finalised to the satisfaction of everyone even though it takes longer to resolve them. The Irish Marine Emergency Service of my Department provides a selection of equipment and training to harbour staff to help them prevent pollution and deal with it when it occurs. I will introduce the Oil Pollution Response Preparedness and Co-operation Convention (OPRC) very soon. This measure will further strengthen the emergency services provided.

Senator T. Fitzgerald referred to the issue of bunker oil from merchant ships. The large tankers now have segregated balanced tanks to enable them to transfer oil from one tank to another. Like many people, I am concerned at the possible spillage of bunker oil, particularly from large merchant ships. This concern is fully justified when one considers that large merchant ships carry more oil in their bunkers than many tankers carry as cargo thus presenting the risk of pollution damage in the event of an incident. I am pleased to note that many countries are concerned about this aspect of risk to the marine environment. The International Maritime Organisation through its legal committee has provided member states with a forum to examine the issue. The assembly of the legal committee holds a session at six monthly intervals and the matter has been on its agenda for the past four sessions. A delegate from my Department and one from the Attorney General's office attend sessions and support the initiative for the establishment of a liability and compensation regime which would be along the lines of the measure which exists for tankers.

I must caution that many large maritime countries are not convinced that a compelling need for such exists. I am glad to say that Ireland is co-sponsoring a position paper at the 77th session of the legal committee assembly. Therefore, this matter is being looked into, and we have noted Senator T. Fitzgerald's comments.

In relation to dumping, all countries have subscribed to the legislation for no dumping in the Irish Sea. The UK is also involved. We are trying to assess what has happened in the past and list types of pollution there. Even though the level of pollution is very low we still want to chart it and tell people what the position is.

Emissions is another matter. Emissions from Sellafield comes under the remit of the Department of Public Enterprise. When those emissions enter the sea they come under the remit of my Department. Therefore, my Department works in conjunction with the Department of Public Enterprise in relation to Sellafield.

In relation to the Kowloon Bridge, legal action is still proceeding and it will take a long of time to resolve the issue.

I thank Members for their contributions and encouraging remarks. I would also like to thank Members for taking the remaining Stages of the Bill. The draughtsman has proposed two technical amendments and these can be dealt with on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.