Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1991

Vol. 409 No. 2

Sea Pollution Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 6:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 12, after "a", to insert "suitably qualified".

—(Deputy G. O'Sullivan.)

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

We had a long debate on this amendment on the last occasion we discussed the Bill. In the meantime I have had occasion to look at the way the Bill is framed and I have to say that I have not changed my mind about the necessity for this amendment. It is very important that this aspect of the Bill is considered very carefully. My amendment proposes that only a suitably qualified member of the Garda Síochána should be appointed as an inspector. On the last occasion we debated the Bill the Minister indicated that a member of the Garda Síochána would only be present as a back-up for the inspector who would have the responsibility of checking any ships coming into our ports. I have looked carefully at the Bill which provides that a member of the Garda Síochána could be appointed as an inspector. I have to emphasise that I have no axe to grind with any member of the Garda Síochána who would be appointed as an inspector but the Bill should specify the qualifications of an inspector. This is very important as section 23 (3) categorically provides that:

If the harbourmaster has refused entry under section (1), the Minister, or a person appointed under subsection (2), may direct the harbour-master to permit the ship to enter, and to comply with such conditions as may be specified, in which case the harbourmaster shall permit the ship to enter the harbour upon such conditions, and the master of the ship shall comply with the said conditions.

The Minister said that an inspector appointed by his Department would be suitably qualified for the job. I do not doubt his word for one moment. I fully accept that inspectors of the Department of the Marine are highly qualified, and they have proved this over and over again in various ways. I would be the first to admit this. However, the Bill provides that a member of the Garda Síochána can be appointed as an inspector. This is where I disagree with the Minister.

I have asked the Minister to either include the words "fully qualified" in section 3 or to delete this subsection. It would be a travesty of justice if a member of the Garda Síochána was empowered to order a harbourmaster to do certain things. As I said, a harbourmaster is a very qualified person. Usually he has a master's ticket and does a first class job. However outlandish it may seem to us here this evening, under this Bill a member of the Garda Síochána could, technically speaking, order a harbourmaster to do certain things. The Minister will probably say this cannot happen, but unfortunately this is possible under the Bill as framed.

I believe the people who drafted the Bill did not recognise this point. They probably took into account small ports where there is no harbour authority and believed that the local garda sergeant would be the ideal person to look after the harbour. I accept this to a certain extent but I want to point out that we are framing legislation which will probably be on the Statute Book for a long time. I am anxious to ensure that this legislation is as tight as we can make it. There is a flaw in this section which the Minister should address.

I have no difficulty with a surveyor of ships, a person appointed by warrant of the Minister or an officer holding a commissioned naval rank in the Defence Forces being appointed inspectors. We have gone aground, so to speak, in regard to the appointment of a member of the Garda Síochána as an inspector. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment which I believe is fair. If the inclusion of the words "suitably qualified" removes the Garda Síochána from the system, then so be it. It is necessary to emphasise that unless the people appointed as inspectors have the same qualifications as harbourmasters, this section will only be a joke.

I ask the Minister to look at my amendment in the light of the other amendments. This is very important. I appreciate the Minister's statement that the Garda Síochána will provide a back-up service for an inspector — it would be very necessary to have a Garda Síochána back-up especially if there is trouble — but the Bill specifically states that a member of the Garda Síochana can become an inspector. I am concerned about the qualifications of gardaí so appointed. They may be qualified in the enforcement of law but in this instance they must have the necessary qualifications to carry out their responsibilities in regard to ships which may be polluting our waters. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.

Mr. Kavanagh

We dealt with this section some five months ago and my colleague, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, has refreshed our memories on the problems we have with this section. We are endeavouring to ensure that any person appointed as an inspector by the Minister knows what he is doing when he is dealing with ships inside or outside a harbour. All we are asking the Minister to do — I believe this is a reasonable request — is to ensure that anyone he appoints as an inspector has an adequate knowledge of ships, their characteristics, cargo handling and the international maritime dangerous goods code. These are matters an inspector will have to deal with if he is trying to rectify the problems outlined in the Bill.

The Minister simply lists people who may be suitably qualified in that section of the Bill to include a member of the Garda Síochána, or a person appointed to be an inspector by warrant of the Minister, or even an officer holding a commissioned naval rank. He may not have that specialised knowledge which not just we on this side of the House believe is necessary but which the Irish Port Authorities Association also regard as essential. They have voiced their concern to the Minister as far back as 6 December 1990 by letter to him. In two letters sent to him on that day they have said they are very unhappy with what he is trying to achieve in this section. I hope that with the passage of five months, the Minister has had an opportunity to examine this matter with his experts in the Department and that he will be convinced that you cannot appoint somebody — no matter how well they may pursue their own careers and duties, such as a member of the Garda — to take over control of a ship if they do not have the specialised knowledge which the Irish Port Authorities Association would require of them. That is all we on this side of the House are trying to achieve. We are not saying to the Minister he must appoint a harbour master; that is not necessary if the person whom he appoints is a surveyor of ships or has the qualifications which the Irish Port Authorities Association require.

An example is given in their letter in the case of the Empress of Canada some years ago which was taken over in the Gladstone Dock in Liverpool and because of the incompetence of the gentleman who took it over, the boat foundered and capsized causing a great deal of danger to the port. Although I believe no lives were lost, the sinking of that ship in the middle of the dock upset the traffic in that area for many months afterwards. There is need for somebody with expertise to do this job. All we are asking the Minister is to accept that that is the case and to look at the list of those he has put forward who may be handed warrants to do the job over the head of a harbour master who would obviously need to have these qualifications before he would get the job of harbour master. There are, of course, harbours where there are no harbour masters — fishery ports, small insignificant ports around the coast where the expertise of a fisherman may be sufficient for the job. To allow one of our 26 or 27 ports under the Harbours Acts or some of the ports that are not already covered by that act such as Dún Laoghaire or Rosslare to appoint somebody without specialist knowledge would certainly cause a great deal of danger to the whole area if he did not have the qualifications put forward by the Irish Port Authorities Association. The Irish Port Authorities Association have indicated to the Minister what they believe are the requirements needed. We on this side of the House believe that is sound advice that should be taken. That is the purpose of the amendment being put forward in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan, and the Minister should give it solid consideration.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I tabled amendment No. 21a which seeks to insert after "person", the words "with suitable qualifications and expertise". This amendment is similar to that tabled by Deputy O'Sullivan. When we debated this Bill on Second Stage we raised extensive concerns in relation to the definition of "inspector" in section 3. We were particularly concerned by the inclusion of the member of the Garda Síochána because the rank is not specified. We do know that members of the Garda Síochána have a very specific involvement in relation to arresting trawlers which are fishing illegally and that the Naval Service cannot act without having a Garda on board but they seek the civil power to undertake the arrest. This situation involves complying with the Marpol Convention and issues of harmful substances that can pollute at sea and on shore. The people concerned need to have specific qualifications and specialist knowledge. They must know exactly what to expect, the entire structure of ships and the various dangers that can arise. This matter was debated extensively on Second Stage. All of us on this side of the House saw the merits of the arguments put forward. At that time we prevailed on the Minister to see the validity of our suggestions. I hope the Minister can see that we are not seeking anything extraordinary, revolutionary or radical but rather something we believe can enhance this Bill so that the people concerned would be in a position to implement its terms when it becomes an Act in a professional and knowledgeable way. As stated on an earlier Stage of the debate, it would be unfair to ask a regular member of the Garda Síochána to undertake some of the very technical and important tasks suggested in the various sections of this Bill.

Harbours and harbour authorities are managed by harbour boards and harbour masters. Harbour masters, in most instances, have extremely high qualifications. This is a special area requiring specialist knowledge which does not come by chance, but rather after years of study and work experience. To put somebody who does not have that background into a position of implementing the terms of this section would be grossly unfair, would make the Bill much less effective and would provide offenders of the Sea Pollution Bill with a defence in the courts. We should not leave a gap in this section but we should be in a position to foresee the inherent dangers and protect against them. That is why I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. The motivation behind it is to improve the Bill and to ensure its implementation so as to have better controls over the type of pollution that can be emitted.

Mr. Gilmore

I support these amendments. It stands to reason that whoever would be appointed as an inspector would have to be a suitably qualified person. The powers of inspectors under section 21 are wide-ranging, for example, the power to take samples of oil, oily mixtures or to copy any entry in any log book of a ship, or to summon witnesses to appear before them. Inspectors would have to know what they were doing in relation to such extensive powers. Section 11 deals with the regulations. Presumably an inspector would go on board a ship to ensure that the regulations were being enforced. There is a very good defence provision in that section, for example, in the case of the discharge into the sea of any oil, oily mixture and so on, the provision is:

"Provided that all reasonable steps have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or, as the case may be, the discovery of the discharge, to prevent or minimise the discharge and the owner or the master did not act with intent to cause damage or recklessness;"

If a person is prosecuted for discharging oil or oily substances into the sea much will hinge on the inspection carried out by the inspector. It is clearly important that whoever goes on board a ship to take samples, look at log books or interview the people on board, knows what he is doing. It stands to reason that the people appointed as inspectors should be suitably qualified persons. This is the type of amendment that the Minister can very readily accept and there should be no difficulty in so doing.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Wilson)

I will take some time with this matter because there seems to be some confusion and there is an onus on me to clarify it. The confusion is caused by linking section 3, which defines inspector, to section 23 (2). In the context of section 3, if what the Deputies have said is true there would be a good deal of substance in their arguments but that is not the case. To insert "suitably qualified" or "qualified" before the words "Garda Síochána" in section 3 would be inappropriate because we would then have to define what suitably qualified means. As Deputy Gilmore said earlier in the discussion, that would involve laying down qualifications as high as PhD. A high ranking officer would not necessarily have the expertise that the Deputies have been talking about. He also might not be available, and again I am talking in the context of section 3 only.

Section 17 (2) of the Bill makes it clear that the role of a member of the Garda Síochána in an inspection is very restricted indeed, and I would draw the attention of Deputies to that. He or she may not carry out a survey or inspect or test a ship, its equipment or fittings for compliance with MARPOL requirements. Let us not forget that MARPOL is basic to this Bill. The intention is that a member of the Garda Síochána or a commissioned officer of the naval service, as is mentioned also in the Bill, would be used to support the technically qualified inspectors by performing such duties as stopping or detaining vessels or crew or dealing with a ship's personnel who for one reason or another might not be co-operative in the particular task. It is well known that members of the Garda Síochána carry out inspections as sea fisheries protection officers under other merchant shipping and fisheries legislation, for example, the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Act, 1988, and the Fisheries Consolidation Act, 1959. Under these Acts a garda can act as an inspector.

The marine surveyors in my Department are qualified to perform all the functions appropriate to an inspector. Inspectors appointed by the Minister under section 20 would have warrants which would specify the functions they are authorised to perform. The Minister would have to be satisfied that they are qualified and equipped to perform these functions. The main purpose of having an inspector appointed under warrant would be to act speedily on receipt of a report of suspected illegal discharge or, say, the detection by aerial surveillance of an oil slick in proximity to a vessel. The offence could relate to an Irish registered vessel quite a distance away and the marine surveyor of the Department might not be readily available to carry out an inspection at that place. The emphasis throughout MARPOL and the Sea Pollution Bill is to act without causing under delay.

As court proceedings for an offence under the Sea Pollution Act would more than likely ensue it would not be prudent for any Minister to appoint an inspector under warrant, someone who is not adequately qualified to exercise his powers as defined under section 21 of the Bill. From time to time the Minister has occasion to appoint inspectors under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The House will know that these inspectors carry out inquiries into accidents, damage done to vessels, safety of hull and machinery and compliance with legislation. As the House knows, I recently had to appoint such an inspector, Captain Kirwan, in the case of the Ballycotton inqury. The Minister will be asked to exercise his judgment on the advice available to him in deciding who is the best qualified person to conduct that type of inquiry.

I started off by saying there was a certain confusion with regard to section 3 (1) (d) which the amendment purports to improve and with section 23 (2). I would draw the attention of the House to section 23 (2) as it has been mentioned already and has been related to section 3. It states: "Where the Minister or a person appointed by the Minister to act on his behalf is satisfied that a ship is a ship to which paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) relates, he may, in his absolute discretion, refuse entry into a harbour to such ship." Deputies will note that the word "inspector" is not used there and there is no reference whatsoever to the people we have been discussing under section 3. It simply mentions a person appointed by the Minister — for example, the Minister of State or Secretary of the Department. It does not refer to an inspector as defined under section 3 (1). No inspector as defined in section 3 (1) of the Bill is being given power to overrule the decision — I know Deputy Kavanagh will be pleased about this, because he raised the matter previously — of a harbourmaster to refuse entry of a ship into the harbour under his control. If one looks at this subsection carefully, it will be noted that only the Minister or a person appointed by him to act on his behalf, for example, a Secretary of the Department or a Minister of State, will be authorised to overrule the harbourmaster's decision.

Harbourmasters may carry out inspections under section 25 of the Bill. They are not classified as inspectors because, by virtue of their office, they have a wide range of powers in relation to the harbours they control and could not be defined as inspectors. The House knows that there is PSC, internationally recognised Port State Control Convention. According to this Paris Convention, inspections are carried out on an ongoing basis on foreign vessels coming into the ports to ensure compliance with several international conventions, including MARPOL, even though MARPOL is not included in our legislation.

When the Bill is read carefully it can be seen that there is no conflict. One must keep in mind that the inspectors provided for in section 3 are disjunctive; the inspector is not the same as the person appointed by the Minister under section 23 (2).

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

The Minister's attempt to clarify the position has confused the House more.

Mr. Kavanagh

He has muddied the waters.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

We are going into muddy waters. The Minister referred me to a part of the legislation that says a person appointed by the Minister, but I refer the Minister to section 21, which very clearly states the powers of an inspector, not those of a person appointed by the Minister. The definition of an inspector is quite clear. An inspector is defined as being a surveyor of ships, a person appointed to be an inspector by warrant of the Minister under section 20, or an officer holding a commissioned naval rank in the Defence Forces, or a member of the Garda Síochána. Section 21 gives that inspector wide sweeping powers.

I cannot accept the Minister's explanation on this issue, because under paragraphs (a) to (i) of section 21 (2) the inspector is given many sweeping powers. I assume that the person to be appointed by the Minister under warrant is one and the same person as the inspector. That has to be so. If not, then the inspector would have many more powers than the person appointed under warrant. Section 21 (2) (g) states than an inspector can "at any time, enter any place, whether on land or at sea, and therein inspect any container for the storage, or any apparatus for the transfer to or from a ship, of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage". In all fairness, the person appointed by the Minister has to be the same person as the inspector. He would be very foolish if we did not take that definition. Perhaps the person who framed the Bill did not consider the measure in the light that I did, but I have before me a very clear definition of an inspector, the powers of an inspector and the way he can carry out those powers.

The Minister's motivation is probably correct, I am not disputing that at all, but he has included in the list of those qualified to be inspectors the Garda Síochána. I must emphasise that I am not against the Garda Síochána, I know that they do tremendous work. However, this is not the work of the Garda Síochána.

The Minister tried to clarify the position, but I very forcibly refer him to section 21, which clearly spells out the powers of an inspector, and by definition such as inspector could be a garda. I admit that the person appointed by warrant by the Minister is not specified as an inspector — I have to admit that because the Minister did outline it for me — but, on the other side, how does the Minister clarify, the position of an inspector? That is where the Bill goes adrift.

It appears that in framing the Bill, the intention was to have a garda provide a back-up service to an inspector if he had to do his duty. I have to emphasise that all we can go on is what is written in the Bill. With all due respect to the Minister, it seems the Minister has juggled this issue backwards and forwards. Section 21 states clearly and categorically what an inspector can do, and according to the Bill an inspector can be a member of the Garda Síochána. It may be that that was never intended, but I ask the Minister to consider carefully my point that the person appointed by warrant and the inspector is one and the same person.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister said it would be difficult to define a suitably qualified person in the Bill. In my view, it is necessary that an attempt is made to provide such a definition. It is important to define the qualities and the requirements of anyone required to do this particularly important job, whether that person be an inspector or someone appointed by warrant. That is why Members very seriously tell the Minister that under section 3 he could not simply appoint a person without ensuring that he was suitably qualified. Nor could he simply appoint a member of the Garda Síochána without that garda being suitably qualified. I do not know whether a bangharda would be accepted for the job, but in any event, neither the gardaí nor the bangharda would be suitably qualified to do the job.

The Minister said he needed latitude in the Bill because an inspector would have to act speedily. I should think that the person on the spot who could act the most speedily would be a harbourmaster.

Mr. Wilson

If he is there.

Mr. Kavanagh

Why could a harbourmaster not be included in the definition? Why are harbourmasters not included in the definition of those who could be appointed?

Mr. Wilson

The Deputy already said that many harbours do not have harbourmasters.

Mr. Kavanagh

I did, indeed, but I think it would be a good start to include harbourmasters in that definition. If a harbour has a harbourmaster, then he should be the person appointed as inspector for the area. That is the point I have been trying to make all the time. The harbourmaster has all the qualifications for the job which are qualifications listed under section 21, and he is the man on the job. A harbourmaster could do all the jobs required of an inspector. I do not know why the Minister is avoiding requests made from this side in that regard. He should first accept that where there are harbourmasters appointed they should be the people to become inspectors. That would at least clear many of the major ports and would resolve the concerns of the Harbourmasters Association and the Irish Port Authorities Association that somebody may be appointed over the heads of harbourmasters to do the job that they are most qualified to do. That would go a long way to settle my concerns also.

There is a harbourmaster in every major port, and they are placed strategically between places that do not have a harbourmaster. The Minister knows that as well as I do. One has only to travel around the coast to find that there may be 20 or 30 miles between major harbours — the distances being perhaps a little longer on the west coast. Nevertheless, harbourmasters are certainly there and there is quite a number of them.

The Minister could improve the Bill by stating that those harbours that have harbourmasters appointed under the Harbours Act, 1946, will have their harbourmasters appointed as inspectors. The Minister would start off with people who have a fund of knowledge and expertise and he would know he has covered the concerns that Members have been voicing in the House, perhaps for too long, but in the hope that the Minister would take on board that reasonable suggestion from this side of the House, one that makes sense because it is their daily task. They have to be on call for seven days a week because of the way shipping operates in major ports, and even in the less significant ports. The Minister would have a group of people who could be relied upon, who would have the knowledge and expertise, and he would only have to be concerned about ports where there are not harbourmasters, ports which would be less likely to have the problems envisaged by the Bill. In exceptional cases only, would the Minister have to appoint people other than those I have suggested.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Kavanagh is a shrewd and experienced Member of this House, but we are here dealing with an amendment about suitably qualified gardaí. In discussing that it was suggested that a garda would have power to overrule a harbourmaster. I indicated that that is not so. We are dealing with a specific amendment. If Deputy Kavanagh looks at section 25 he will see that a harbourmaster has authority of inspection in his harbour area.

Mr. Kavanagh

On a point of order, we are discussing not just one area. We are discussing two other amendments.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

We are discussing amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 21 and 21a are related and it was agreed that they could be discussed together.

Mr. Wilson

It is all about a suitably qualified garda.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The amendments do not mention the word "garda". They refer specifically to suitably qualified persons, and to a person with a qualification and expertise in the area. There are serious defects in the Bill in relation to defining an inspector as a member of the Garda Síochána. Section 21 refers in detail to the powers of the inspector. Section 22 relates to the defective ship or equipment and it says:

(1) Where an inspector determines, having inspected a ship, that the ship or any equipment or fitting thereon—

(a) does not correspond substantially with the particulars specified in a certificate under section 17 or an equivalent certificate issued by another Party to the MARPOL Convention, or

Will someone tell me what member of the Garda Síochána would know anything about the MARPOL Convention not to talk abot the certificate under section 17 of this Bill?

Mr. Gilmore

You would be surprised at what the Garda know.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I am not aware that the Department of Justice are extending the training of Garda recruits to such an extent that an ordinary recruit leaving training headquarters would have this type of knowledge. It is to talk pie in the sky to suggest that under section 22 an ordinary garda would go out to a ship and make this sort of decision. I agree with Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan that this is a specialised area. For us to casually suggest that a garda can do the type of work necessary and the necessary testing and come to the conclusions one is expected to come to and have the extensive maritime expertise required by this Bill is asking too much of a regular member of the Garda Síochána. To leave in the section a provision that an inspector may be a member of the Garda Síochána is ridiculous. The situation is farcical. If the Minister had the good sense to take out that bit and put in "a harbour master" who knows what it is about and knows about shipping it would improve the Bill. The harbour master is not mentioned except in relation to specific functions in other sections. He is not classified under the term "inspector". We have a number of harbour masters in the major ports who would have the necessary qualification and expertise to do this work. My amendment seeks to insert "with suitable qualifications and expertise". Who has more suitable qualifications and expertise than the harbour master?

The Minister has attempted a good defence of this section and the definition of inspector but the more one analyses this section the more one realises how ridiculous it is. We must acknowledge that where circumstances arise where a ship must be boarded, every harbour master will not be so busy that he cannot leave down what he is doing in his local harbour and take on the urgent work required in circumstances envisaged under the Bill. The Minister has not convinced me that this amendment should not be pushed. The more I hear, the more I realise how defective the section is and how necessary the amendment is.

Mr. Wilson

Naivete can run people into strange circumstances. We had a very serious oil pollution problem in Bantry Bay recently. The officers of my Department acquitted themselves with such distinction there that they drew plaudits——

Mr. Kavanagh

Rightly so.

Mr. Wilson

——from all over the world.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We fully supported and complimented them on that.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Taylor-Quinn talked about a harbour master. There was not any harbour master in Bantry Bay. I had to appoint an inspector to do that.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The inspector was appointed from the Minister's Department not from the Garda Síochána.

Mr. Wilson

Bantry Bay comprises one of the finest roadsteads and harbours we have. In those circumstances, running a harbour master over from Cork city would not be very helpful. This was a very serious problem. We had another serious case off the Deputy's coastline and again I had to appoint——

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The best expertise from the Department of the Marine.

Mr. Wilson

——an inspector to go down to Ballyvaughan. There was not a harbour master in Ballyvaughan which was at serious risk. An inspector had to be appointed and he dealt with that situation with expertise second to none in the world. We cannot be naive about it.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I take the opportunity to compliment the Minister on his wisdom in Bantry and Ballyvaughan in appointing excellent people with suitable expertise and qualifications.

Mr. Wilson

That is the kind of judgment I have.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Minister may not always be in the very illustrious seat he is in at the moment.

Mr. Wilson

Have you ambitions?

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We have to protect against future Ministers who may not have the same wisdom as the present Minister.

Mr. Wilson

Not likely.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is why it is important that any legislation which goes through here does not give an opening to a harum-scarum Minister of the future to do something of this nature. It may not happen but we should not provide the opportunity in the legislation to do this. In neither instance to which the Minister referred was the inspector a member of the Garda Síochána. In both instances the best people were employed and I compliment them on how they acquitted themselves, their work was first class, they were excellent and deserve the full support of this House. They were suitably qualified people and that is why the legislation should be specific in this regard.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister paid me a compliment in regard to how I make use of a debate in this House and I should like to return the compliment. He implied that we did not have faith in his Department's inspectors; of course we have. Like the Minister, I have had experience of their work and I hold them in the highest regard. However, as Deputy Taylor-Quinn said, many gardaí in the areas to which the Minister referred were helpful but they were not inspectors. The amendment merely asks that "a suitably qualified garda" should be an inspector. The Minister would possibly have appointed an inspector in one or both of those areas if he had found a suitably qualified garda.

It is not outlandish to suggest that the Minister should have gone to Cork for a harbourmaster or — in the case of Ballyvaughan — to Galway because he could have sent somebody from Dublin, which would have been quicker. The Minister had two specialists close to the areas and he did the right thing. There was an excellent result from the officers concerned. That being the case, that category should be included in the Bill as they are the most suitably qualified people for the job. The Minister is making a mistake in saying that the only people who should be inspectors are those with qualifications. If the Minister does not accept our amendment it means that the Bill will be flawed because he is not asking for the expertise he believed was necessary when he had a problem on his hands in two areas.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

We have been discussing this matter for a long time. We included the words "suitably qualified" because we felt the Minister would not change the qualifications under that heading. Perhaps, on second thoughts, the Minister may eliminate the Garda Síochána from the Bill. I appreciate that an inspector would have to have Garda back-up and maybe that was on the Minister's mind but we must go on what is in the Bill.

I compliment the Minister on what was done in Bantry Bay, it was an excellent job by experts in their field who were in a dangerous position. The Minister obviously has expertise in this Department. The same applies to Ballyvaughan, they brought the fish down to Cork and it smelled for quite a while but we will not say a word about that.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Minister did not say that anyone would be paid for cleaning it up.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I do not want anyone to think we are criticising the Garda Síochána, that is not true. Has the Minister had consultations with the Garda Commissioner in regard to this issue? It appears that gardaí are just slotted into a situation over which they have no control. A garda can enforce the law but we have a difficulty in asking him to become an inspector. That is why we put in "suitably qualified". Gardaí do not need to have a college degree, merely to be suitably qualified. If the Minister had deleted it from the Bill it would have solved everyone's problem. However, I have to go on the definition in the Bill which very clearly states that a garda can become an inspector. If the garda is to be involved he must be suitably qualified; if not let us have the experts, including the harbourmaster.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 68.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connor, John.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Ferris; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

Question: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.

SECTION 4.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I move amendment No. 7a:

In page 8, subsection (1), lines 8 to 10, to delete all words from and including "or to any" in line 8 down to the end of the subsection and substitute the following "in wartime, where pollution occurs from that ship as a result of an assault from an enemy ship, submarine, or aircraft.".

Under section 4 warships are exempted from the provisions of the Bill, but it is well known that warships cause major pollution right across the world. It is possible that most of our sea-going vessels are warships in one form or another, whether they are ships or submarines. The United States Navy used to throw a great deal of waste into the sea but once the MARPOL convention was introduced which stopped the dumping of plastic, in particular, into the sea, 62 million lbs less litter was thrown into the sea each year. The level of pollution caused by warships is high and there is no justification for suggesting that warships in our waters from outside our jurisdiction should be exempted from the provisions of this Bill.

In my amendment I propose that warships come within the provisions of the Bill except in certain circumstances. In normal circumstances one could not justify a warship being exempt from pollution controls. Some of these ships carry up to 4,000 people, resulting in food, plastic, garbage, sewage and possibly oil spillages. There should be an onus on these ships to comply with the MARPOL Regulations, as is the case with all other sea-going vessels. I do not see why there should be any exception for warships, except in time of war where they are a victim of circumstances. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of it and accept it.

Mr. Gilmore

I will be opposing section 4 of this Bill. It is quite a remarkable section, which provides for exemptions for two categories. It says that "The Act shall not apply to any warship or to any ship for the time being used by the government of any country for purposes other than commercial purposes." The second category exempts ships in situations where the Minister may be regulation exempt any other type of vessel or class of ship registered in the State from complying with the provisions of this Bill. We are dealing with the issue of sea pollution, which is defined in section 3, and "garbage", which is defined also, so we know that we are dealing with serious pollution threats. Frankly, I do not believe there should be any exemptions, because if you start getting into the area of exempting certain types of ships, they may very well be the type of ship that will end up discharging something into the sea and causing a major pollution risk to our coastline and to the sea itself. If a ship causes pollution or there is a serious discharge of a pollutant from a ship it is going to cause damage to the sea, to the coastline. Pollution is not going to discriminate between the kind of damage it does to the coastline or to wildlife, or to fish because it happens to be caused by a warship or a ship which the Minister happened to have made regulations exempting it from the terms of this Bill.

There are a number of amendments dealing with this. Deputy O'Sullivan has tabled one amendment to delete the word "not" and in another amendment he proposes to delete subsection (2), which is essentially the same as what I propose in opposing the section. Then we come to deal with Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment No. 7a, and quite honestly I do not know where Deputy Taylor-Quinn got the idea for this amendment but in my opinion it makes matters worse. Her amendment provides that warships can be exempted except in wartime, where pollution occurs from that ship as a result of an assault from an enemy ship, submarine or aircraft——

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is not so.

Mr. Gilmore

Let us think this through. As I understand it, the Minister in his Second Stage reply indicated that one of the reasons for this provision was, not to deal with situations in relation to our own warships — not that I was aware that we had any — but that this was included because some of the countries who were a party to MARPOL had large navies and for security reasons and so on did not want inspectors to be able to go on board their ships, look at logs and investigate what they were about. I do not agree with that kind of logic but I can understand where it is coming from. We do not have any of these war ships. Deputy Taylor-Quinn is saying that it is all very well to exempt warships in wartime or where there is an assault on an enemy ship, submarine or aircraft. In what circumstances does she envisage a warship being assaulted in Irish waters in wartime? Who will come to attack us with a warship or whom will we attack? I know that Fine Gael made much play recently of neutrality being out of date, but I had not thought they had quite got to the stage where they were about to declare war on somebody. These would appear to be the circumstances Deputy Taylor-Quinn is trying to provide for in this amendment.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Deputy is doing very well. Keep going.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister indicated last week at Question Time in reply to a question about submarines in the Irish Sea that there was a serious threat to fishing and passenger vessels as a result of the activities of submarines. We know that many of these submarines are nuclear powered. Can we imagine the extent of pollution which would result from an assault on a nuclear powered submarine in the Irish Sea? It might be assaulted under the exemption allowed for in Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment.

Mrs. Barnes

We would not be worried about garbage.

Mr. Gilmore

No, indeed.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Plastics would melt very fast.

Mr. Gilmore

I do not believe Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment will resolve the issue we have to consider. The issue is simple. There should be no warships in Irish waters nor any ship being used for the time being by the government of another country for purposes other than commercial purposes.

What exactly is being provided for here? Perhaps the Minister could indicate the circumstances in which he would envisage making regulations, the type of vessels which would be exempted and when they might be exempted. Either this Bill will protect our seas and our coastline or it will not. I should like to know the circumstances in which it would be all right to have pollution. In what circumstances will we wake up in the morning to discover that there has been a major oil spill causing pollution of the coast or the sea and we will decide it is not too bad because it has come from a warship or a vessel that has been exempted under the Minister's regulations? That would be very poor consolation when dealing with very serious matters of pollution. This Bill either applies to all ships or it does not. If we make exemptions, then those exemptions will produce the exception which in turn will produce pollution.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

My amendment No. 7 provides for the deletion of the word "not". I have to ask permission to withdraw that amendment and to oppose the section because a double negative is involved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 7 is out of order.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

We will certainly oppose the section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If amendment No. 7 is taken with amendment No. 8 there is a direct negative.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Thank you. I am learning very fast with your guidance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So are we all.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

All ships should come under the law and I cannot understand why naval ships should be exempted. Naval ships should be the example. We should be able to frame our own legislation and should not depend on others. It is one of the weaknesses of the MARPOL agreement that governments who bring in legislation under that agreement are those which have strong naval forces and they have a vested interest in exempting their ships from this type of regulation. If we are serious about protecting our marine environment we have no option but to allow the law to run its course. All vessels should come under the legislation. I cannot understand why governments who are party to the MARPOL agreement exclude naval vessels.

There are vessels which have polluted our waters out of sight of land. This country should take a very strong hand on the issue of naval vessels. It would be ridiculous if a ferry coming into Cork, Rosslare or Dún Laoghaire had to abide by the regulations while a naval vessel would be able to cause pollution coming into the harbour. It is incredible that that could happen. I look forward to the Minister's explanation. It is ridiculous that a Government who are to bring in strict regulations should exempt naval forces.

Mr. Garland

I oppose the whole section and I am not inclined to support Deputy Taylor-Quinn's rather convoluted amendment. A much clearer position is to oppose the whole section. The reason for opposing the section have already been made by Deputies Gilmore and O'Sullivan. Nevertheless there is another point that needs to be made here.

The Minister is making great play of the fact that the object of this Bill is to ratify the MARPOL Convention 14 years after it should have been ratified, but that is another day's work. What is MARPOL? MARPOL is an international treaty voluntarily entered into by about 130 different countries. Of necessity it is minimalist; it is the lowest common denominator. It is all that 130 countries could agree and that, as far as I know, has to be by consensus. In a consensual situation like that one invariably comes out with the lowest common denominator. Certainly in this respect the MARPOL Convention is seriously flawed and this is another item that should be on the agenda for the Minister as soon as this Bill is enacted. The Minister has an obligation to initiate another MARPOL Convention to improve the original MARPOL Convention in this respect at any rate — and there may be other areas that need improvement. There is much unfinished business here. We all agree there is a large percentage of maritime business in naval vessels or war ships. The Minister has not made a case. Let us suppose there was no MARPOL. I put it to the Minister that we need a sea pollution Bill and there certainly would be no question of any exemption for war ships, if we were starting afresh. So I have no hesitation in opposing this section.

Mrs. Barnes

I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. MARPOL may have had to extend its boundaries to take in some of the other warlike and military armed nations. Of course we are in a completely different situation and intend, hopefully, to stay that way. Therefore, when we bring in a sea pollution Bill we should make every effort not to include any exemption from the polluting of our seas.

In fact the military sources of pollution of our oceans are incredibly high. I understand 163,170,000 lbs. of pollution and garbage is dumped in the oceans each year. Each crew member in the United States navy generates three pounds of solid waste per day of which up to .2 lbs. is plastic. Some ships with 5,000 men abroad can generate 1,000 lbs. of plastic trash per day. We are talking about horrific poundage. Leaving aside the other waste, that 1,000 lbs. of plastic waste will take maybe 1,000 years to decompose.

The last thing we need around our shores is naval or war vessels, nor indeed should there ever be any need for them. I am sure there are more crew members on a warship than there are passengers on a cruising passenger ship. What I am talking about is probably the greatest polluter with garbage and waste, particularly plastic, because if one is catering for 5,000 crew members one will be using many plastic disposables and they take a long time to decompose.

I want to add my voice to those objecting to the incredible idea of exempting war ships. If we are bringing in a sea pollution Bill let us make it as strong and as effective as possible and let us set higher standards than those demanded by international conventions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have moved from the amendment to the section. I know there is a very definite correlation and affinity but when we have disposed of the amendment we will be free to apply ourselves to the section. Could we concentrate initially on the amendment, dispose of that and then deal with the section to our hearts content?

Mr. Kavanagh

I quite agree with the Deputy. We cannot support the amendment and, since my colleague's amendment is regarded as redundant, I just want to give the reasons why. Article 2 of the MARPOL Convention defines as a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the maritime environment. That includes every vessel, warships and so on. I do not think that under any circumstances the Oireachtas should exclude any ship. Obviously, the Minister will say we have to adopt the MARPOL Convention as it stands and, therefore, he has to include this section relating to warships. All we can do is oppose the section and it is pointless going along with the amendment.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Kavanagh quoted article 2 which states that a ship means a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the maritime environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft and fixed or floating platforms.

Article 3.3, which is relevant to the amendment, states that the convention shall not apply to any warship, naval, auxiliary or other ship owned or operated by a State and used for the time being only on Government non-commercial service; but that each party shall ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures, not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of such ships owned or operated by it, that such ships act in a manner consistent so far as is reasonable and practicable with the present convention. The present convention is the MARPOL Convention.

The purpose of the Bill is to give us, with an international setting, as strong an anti-pollution Bill as we possibly can get, as strong an Act as we can put on the Statue Book. The fact that it is in an international setting adds support and strength to the Bill.

Unfortunately for some Deputies, the procedure under international law is as stated in Article 3.3. No state makes warships subject to domestic legislation but there is the rider in Article 3.3 that I have just read out — the strong recommendation that even such a ship, whether it is a warship or one used by a government for other than commercial purposes, should see to it that all necessary steps are taken to prevent pollution.

The balance is between placing our Sea Pollution Bill in the proper international context or introducing our own private Bill when we would not have the international support. This is germane to the amendment before us. As we are on one of the busiest laneways from North America to Europe it is necessary to place the Bill in the context of the international law of the sea.

I want to make a point about Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment. It is important to realise that in international law force majeure— weather, war etc — is very important and should be taken cognisance of. The amendment is not necessary because it is already an internationally accepted principle of maritime law that in cases of force majeure compliance with rules and regulations may be waived. It is important to note that.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I am delighted that this amendment has given rise to such debate in the House. I have been interested in the variety of contributions made so far. Deputy O'Sullivan dealt with it in the reasonable way he usually adopts. Deputy Gilmore decided to follow a few hares and became very concerned about warships. He wondered in what circumstances warships would come into our waters and whether the Fine Gael Party were raising questions of neutrality or Ireland being involved in war. Being what I consider an intelligent, usually practical Deputy, he would, I thought, have seen the common sense of the amendment.

The section exempts warships or any ship used by a government for business other than commercial purposes. Being pragmatic and practical we on this side of the House felt that in time of war where ships become victims of circumstances and could cause pollution because of circumstances outside their control, to exempt them would make common sense. If Deputy Gilmore wants to follow the line he might be pre-empting a debate that will take place in this House in the near future. We should not put our heads in the sand either since we are a member of the EU striving towards greater political union. Defence union as an issue will be discussed in this House——

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

It could not be at a better time for Europe.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We can legislate in anticipation of events that may happen. However, we should not put our heads in the sand and say these things do not arise.

Deputy Kavanagh dealt with the section on the MARPOL Convention. Maybe the Labour Party could not justify it but I detected a certain element of fear in relation to warships. That raises questions certain Members might be afraid to address, but we as a party are pragmatic and realistic and can face up to problems.

Deputy Garland thought the amendment convoluted. I fail to understand where the convolution arises. The amendment is straightforward and deals practically with a situation. We do not believe warships should be exempt from this Bill. We believe they should be exempted only where they are victims of war, are attacked and pollution occurs. In normal circumstances I do not see why naval vessels should be exempt from the rules and regulations that apply to all other seagoing vessels around Irish waters or why they should not have to comply with the same rules and regulations as the ordinary civilian operator when they dock at our various ports to dispose of their garbage. To exempt them is wrong. In every instance the arm of government should set the example to the civilian operator. Exemption is unacceptable. I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment. It is practical and deserves support and I am happy it has generated a certain amount of debate in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy anxious that I put the question?

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Absolutely.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 39.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Connor, John.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Noonan, Michael
• (Limerick East).
• Owen, Nora.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.