Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 May 1998

Vol. 491 No. 2

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill, 1998: [Seanad] Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill is a major improvement in the law protecting the marine environment. It will significantly improve the compensation available for pollution caused by tanker spills. Specifically, it will increase the maximum compensation available for tanker spills threefold; extend the scope of application of existing international conventions to include unladen tankers and seagoing vessels which were adapted for the carriage of oil in bulk; provide for compensation for measures taken in anticipation of an oil spill; provide for compensation for clean-up operations where the source of pollution cannot be identified; oblige ship owners to have adequate insurance cover; extend our jurisdiction for oil pollution purposes from 12 miles to 200 miles; and ensure that liability for compensation rests primarily with ship owners.

Ireland's geographical location at the apex of some of the busiest shipping routes in the world leaves us vulnerable to the threat of serious pollution incidents. Deputies will recall the Sea Empress accident in Milford Haven in 1996 which 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. Our coastline, stretching for some 7,800 kilometres, is one of our great natural resources. It is vital that it is protected from the devastating effects that such massive releases of oil can cause.

The legislation will bring Irish law governing compensation for oil pollution damage into line with the highest international standards. It will provide strong safeguards for our seas and coastal communities in the event of damage to our beaches and other shoreline amenities. Its benefit will be felt by fishermen, fish farmers, tourism interests and all those who depend on the sea for their livelihoods. As Minister responsible for the marine resource, I am committed to a cleaner marine environment. The legislation is evidence of that commitment.

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 Maritime 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 International Maritime Organisation 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 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. Seagoing vessels which are adapted for the carriage of oil in bulk 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 miles limit to a distance of 200 miles. Also, compensation will be payable for pre-spill preventative measures taken to avert an imminent danger of pollution damage, which is important to this country.

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 to 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 tons. A new limit of about £2.9 million will apply to small ships of less than 5,000 tons and ships between 5,000 and 140,000 tons 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 International Maritime Organisation 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 the application of the "polluter pays" principle to which I am fully committed. The resources thus saved by the IOPC Fund will provide for the proposed increased levels of compensation for pollution damage, 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. I regard it as vitally important that Ireland is in a position to apply the new arrangements by 16 May and ask for the co-operation of Deputies in progressing this Bill as speedily as possible. I thank those Deputies who have given assurances in this regard.

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, who 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.

There are three importers in Ireland liable for contributions to the fund: the ESB, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation and Aughinish Alumina. 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 that current levels will not be greatly exceeded.

I have examined the sections of the 1988 Act not being amended by the Bill and found them 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 substantially, 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.

I do not propose to table any amendments on Committee Stage. I will, however, ask the Clerk of the Dáil under the direction of the Ceann Comhairle to make a correction of a verbal nature to sections 2 and 9 in accordance with Standing Order 126. In section 2, line 23, there should be no reference to section 3(2) and the reference to section 3(1) in lines 27 and 32 respectively, all on page 3 of the Bill, should refer instead to section 3. In section 3, line 4 of page 4, the number "(1)" should be deleted. Section 9(b) refers to the "International Regulations of the Fund"— this should be the "Internal Regulations of the Fund". The error arose during the drafting of a Committee Stage amendment introduced in the Seanad. The text of the Bill as initiated refers correctly to the "Internal Regulations of the Fund".

Proper management and protection of our marine environment must be achieved through a blend of strong legislative control, comprehensive research and the provision of a solid infrastructure to deal with potential emergencies. This Bill is only one of a number of important measures for the protection of the marine environment 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. Fifteen European states, including Ireland, are party to this convention, which consolidates the original Oslo and Paris conventions and takes account of developments since they were signed in the early 1970s. The new convention places particular emphasis on the need to increase our knowledge of the state of the marine environment. To this end Ireland is actively participating in the preparation of a quality status report for the north-east Atlantic which will be completed in the year 2000.

In July I will be representing Ireland at the ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission in Lisbon. This will be the first ministerial meeting of the commission to take place under the new convention and will provide the political impetus for future action to ensure a sustainable marine environment in the north-east Atlantic.

Last December I updated the regulations made under the Sea Pollution Act, 1991, which give effect to the International Maritime Organisation's 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. I have also signed new port state control regulations providing for systematic inspections of a minimum of 25 per cent of all vessels calling at our ports with a view to confirming that they comply with the various internationally agreed conventions in relation to safety and pollution prevention.

The Government is committed to taking all possible steps to protect the public from dangers associated with the nuclear industry, and I will refer to two important initiatives I have taken since becoming Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. Last November, I travelled to London to address the 20th Assembly of the International Maritime Organisation 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 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 assure the House that I will continue my efforts to bring about further improvements in this area.

Last year, I established a Task Force on Radioactive Dumping 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 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 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 cut 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 radio-logical protection generally, on which my Department is represented by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Hugh Byrne.

I will shortly implement 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 emergency situations 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, 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 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.

Deputies will no doubt be struck by the range of international agreements in the area of environmental protection. The protection of our marine environment is an international issue and it is only through international agreement that real progress can be achieved. Ireland is committed to participating in the work of organisations such as the International Maritime Organisation, OSPAR and the European Union to ensure that the highest possible standards of environmental protection are agreed and implemented.

I have ordered a thorough assessment of the risk from large tankers approaching or passing our coast which become disabled. The danger of massive pollution damage in these cases can be reduced or eliminated by using sufficiently powerful specialised towing vessels which keep potential pollutants in a disabled vessel, and the vessel, afloat. Vessels which are a danger to our marine and coastal environment can be stopped in their tracks and diverted from our coasts and valuable fishing grounds.

I have mandated the marine advisory emergency group, under the chairmanship of the Irish Marine Emergency Service, to investigate the need for emergency towing vessels as a potent force for pollution prevention in marine emergencies. Currently we rely solely on the availability and capability of commercial vessels. We should at least have one of these vessels under our own control, even in the interim, and use the commercial facilities in addition to that vessel. That is another aspect of the approach we are taking.

The Bill is an important new measure to deal with oil pollution. It will bring Ireland into line with the highest international standards. It will substantially increase the protection of our marine resource. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Finucane:

I welcome the Bill as its primary objective is to protect our coastline and coastal communities from the ravages that an oil spillage can inflict. I am aware that a fund is currently maintained by the oil importers, namely, Aughinish Alumina Limited, the ESB and the INPC. The reason the fund is restricted to those companies is that it only applies to importers who imported by sea more than 150,000 tonnes in the previous year. I understand the total annual contribution is in the region of £80,000.

I welcome the fact that compensation payment is being increased from £58 million to £130.5 million for a single incident. The Bill is important because it strengthens the compensation likely to be paid in the event of damage inflicted by oil on fish farming, tourism interests, fishermen and local authorities.

In the past, only purpose built tankers were covered by legislation but now seagoing vessels which have been adapted for transporting oil will be covered. I also welcome the fact that unladen tankers will be covered under the new legislation. The extension of the jurisdiction for oil pollution damage from 12 to 200 miles is welcome.

While generally welcoming the Bill, I am concerned about the statement in it that 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 on the part of a Government or an agency responsible for the maintenance of navigational aids. As the charting of our waters was carried out by the British Admiralty more than 150 years ago, how can the Minister be confident we are protected if a ship flounders due to out of date chart data and faulty navigational aids? When does the Minister intend to proceed with a proper hydrographic survey of our waters, which is long overdue, to protect us against this eventuality?

While the introduction of legislation of this nature is desirable and laudable, we must ensure we do not leave ourselves open to a court challenge as a result of not having our own house in order. In 1996, we watched on our television screens the serious damage done to the Welsh coastline by an oil spillage when the Sea Empress ran aground. The effect of that oil spillage was felt along our southern and eastern coastlines and were it not for favourable weather conditions at the time, the effect might have been much more serious. In 1993, the MV Braer broke up off the Shetland Islands and spilled 84,000 tonnes of oil into the sea. The reopening of the Whiddy oil terminal recently, with the arrival of the MV Prospect Bay, reminded us of the horrible tragedy that occurred 20 years ago when the MV Betelgeuse exploded with the tragic loss of 51 lives.

In regard to coastal erosion, it is a source of major disappointment that just over £5 million was negotiated under the Operation Programme for Environmental Services, 1994-99. An allocation of £1 million per year to combat coastal erosion was derisory and did not reflect reality when one considers the scope of the problem.

In a survey carried out in 1992 by the national coastal erosion committee of the County and City Engineers' Association, it was estimated that 5,800 kilometres of coastline was at risk from erosion and that at least £125 million would be required to address the coastal areas at risk. I remind the Minister that the figure of £125 million was based on evidence obtained in 1992.

The firm of consultants Brady, Shipman and Martin were paid £131,000 recently to prepare a response on coastal zone management. They estimated that coastal erosion causes a loss of land of between 160 and 300 hectares a year. Unless a serious attempt is made to provide proper funding under the next operational programme, large parts of our coastline will be lost to the sea.

As a result of revelations by the UK authorities that nuclear waste was being dumped in the Beaufort Dyke between Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Minister decided to set up a task force. The Bill is restricted to tankers. What sanctions, if any, apply to merchant ships and bunker oil spillages? Many of the large merchant vessels carry more oil than a great deal of the smaller tankers. Given the volume of merchant ships that operate in and out of Irish ports, there is a necessity to introduce safeguards in this area and compensation mechanisms because of the inherent oil pollution risks.

I fully appreciate the Minister's urgency in expediting the legislation as he is most anxious to expedite the Bill before 16 May, with 23 other countries. I welcome the Bill and see it as a progressive step.

Mr. Bell:

I welcome the opportunity to address this Bill. As the Minister said we have agreed to co-operate fully with him because we appreciate the urgency in having the Bill enacted.

The Bill provides for some much needed increases in penalties so that parties who have been on the receiving end of damage caused by oil pollution can be compensated adequately. It also makes provision for shipping companies to have sufficient insurance to cover liability and it extends Ireland's jurisdiction for oil pollution purposes. In particular, I welcome the extension of the 12 mile limit to 200 miles.

The coastline is one of our most valuable resources, providing a stable economy for many communities involved in the fishing and tourism industries. It also provides a home for wildlife unique to Ireland and is vital in the management of water supply and waste disposal. Our coastline is not just important to us as a nation, our surrounding waters provide one of the busiest shipping routes in the world and the transportation of oil accounts for a substantial proportion of this shipping. It is, therefore, vital to provide as many safeguards against pollution as possible while also ensuring our economy is not devastated in the event of a major spillage.

The Bill offers a mechanism to prevent huge financial losses in the event of an oil spillage but in terms of making provision to prevent a major disaster the Bill is lacking. While I welcome the Bill I do not believe it can stand alone as a measure to prevent and deal with oil pollution. We need to learn the lessons from major oil spillage disasters that have occurred not far from here.

We have been fortunate not to have had any major disaster due to oil pollution. However, in many ways, we have been lucky to have escaped the effects of disasters such as the grounding of the Sea Empress in Milford Haven in 1989 and the breaking up of the Braer off the Shetland Islands in 1987, when 84,000 tonnes of oil were spilt.

In response to the Milford Haven disaster, a major initiative was launched in Wales to ensure against further disasters and to generally improve the quality of the Welsh coastal environment. This initiative involves a range of interest groups comprising local authorities, the Welsh Tourist Board and representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors who have a vested interest in the Welsh coastline. They work to ensure the Welsh waters are clean and that the beaches are of the highest quality. Similar initiatives in Ireland would lead to a greater awareness of the importance of our coastline and the need to maintain high standards.

Developments in the shipping of cargo have changed dramatically in recent decades. Cost factors have, in many instances, resulted in the employment of cheap labour and low cost crews to operate ships. Many of these crews do not receive sufficient training and would be unable to deal with an emergency and employ safety procedures in the case of a major oil spillage. To this end, we need more stringent policing at an international level to ensure all safety standards are adhered to and that a benchmark for training standards is established and applied to all those entering the shipping industry.

The capacity of ships has increased substantially in recent years. Bulk carriers threaten our sea to such an extent that they could wipe out masses of fish stocks and destroy wildlife habitats.

The compensation provisions in the Bill would not adequately cover the costs incurred from damage resulting from a major oil spillage. Given the increasing level of shipping traffic and the actual capacity of these ships, we will be obliged to revisit this Bill in four or five years' time.

I was going to ask the Minister how we can be sure that ships have adequate cover but he said they would have to carry a certificate to establish same. How can we establish the correct tonnage? I assume a mechanism is built into the convention to achieve that. It is not just shipping companies that must ensure all is safe and well, there is an obligation on Government to ensure that harbours and estuaries are capable of accommodating ships for docking in a safe way. Dredging and regular safety inspections are essential to the safety of our harbours and estuaries.

An integrated approach to coastal management is necessary to plan for the future of our maritime economy. Coastal erosion, pollution caused by industry and in particular from Sellafield and the threat of oil spillages, all pose huge risks to the future of our maritime economy. I am not convinced that local authorities are equipped to deal effectively, quickly and expertly with a major oil spillage. I look forward to the Minister's views on that matter.

On Sellafield and in particular the Minister's discussions with the UK Minister, Dr. Jack Cunningham, MP, regarding the nuclear waste dumped between Northern Ireland and Scotland in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, will he outline in greater detail the outcome of those discussions and the guarantees received from Dr. Cunningham?

I welcome this Bill as a step forward but it is only that, a step that needs to be built upon. The Labour Party fully supports the measure.

Mr. Sargent:

Tá áthas orm seans a fháil An Bille um Ola-Thruailliú na Farraige (Dliteanas Sibhialta agus Cúiteamh) (Leasú), 1998, a phlé. This Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill, 1998, is an attempt to update Irish law and conform with our international obligations in this area and is welcome. Many of the worst ecological disasters in the world in recent years have been as a result of oil spills. To a large extent this country has avoided the worst effects of devastation through oil pollution. However, when oil spills occurred they have been dealt with complacently, which should concern us in the event of a disaster here on the proportion of, say, the infamous Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska. To that extent we have been fortunate because as an island nation, living in close proximity to some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and aware of the standards of shipping maintenance that prevail, it could be argued that a major oil spillage in this region is just waiting to happen. If it were to happen what could be anticipated in terms of appropriate action from the Government and relevant authorities? The experience of last year's oil spillage from the Irish National Petroleum Company's refinery in Whitegate in Cork Harbour does not inspire confidence. First, there was a delay in finding and then admitting to the leak. This was followed by persistent disinformation about the size of the spill. Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency took a slap on the wrist attitude in taking the INPC to the lowest court, the District Court. It imposed the minimum fine of £2,000, which was nothing less than a gross insult.

The levels of fines and penalties imposed in this Bill are impressive. However, while high fines have been approved in previous environmental protection legislation there has been an unwillingness to levy them. It is of no practical use enacting legislation which makes us feel good about ourselves and implies we are taking care of the environment if the culture of taking strong action in seeking to protect the environment is missing. The need to levy heavy penalties only comes into effect when environmental damage has been caused. Legislation of this kind fails to address the preventative measures and the Government consequently operates in a vacuum because little or nothing appears to be done about these.

The risk of oil pollution can ultimately be reduced by being less dependent on oil as our primary energy source. Despite green sounding noises from successive Governments, there is little indication that such a policy is being promulgated or advanced with any degree of enthusiasm. Indeed, we are more dependent on imported fossil fuel than previously, which is a cause of concern to the ESB and others who consider this to be untenable.

While we continue to depend on oil we need to examine the procedures which apply to the carriage of oil and oil products in international and, more specifically, Irish territorial waters. International maritime law continues to be flawed in this area. The onus should be on the Government, through this country's membership of the Paris and Oslo conventions, to seek necessary changes. If there is reluctance from other Governments to help bring about such changes, the Government should be prepared to act unilaterally, if it is willing or able to do so on any issue.

The condition and safety of many ships on the world seas is frightening and should be an issue of pressing international concern. The situation is made worse by ships constantly availing of flags of convenience for tax avoidance purposes, the minimisation of labour costs and the circumventing of labour rights by ship owners in hiring crews which in many cases cannot even communicate with their officers in the same language.

International debate on the transport of oil by ship is centred on the question of carriage by single hull vessels or compulsion that all oil carrying ships should be double hulled. Statistics appear to indicate that double hulled vessels are involved in fewer accidents. Even where they are involved, they have a greater potential to help alleviate possible damage. Recent oil spillages, such as from the Sea Empress in the Irish sea, which thankfully had little impact on the Irish coast line, and from the Braer in the North Sea, have occurred in single hull vessels.

The debate on the safe disposal of oil rigs located in the North Sea has generated one of the more high profile environmental controversies of recent years. The Brent Spar controversy raised serious questions about the extent to which we have used the sea as a repository for much of what we do not want to know about. We should know by now that out of sight, out of mind approaches have a habit of rebounding on us. Nor should we think that the Brent Spar debate is of little relevance to this country. The coastline is littered with exploratory rigs.

The Kinsale gas field is due to expire in a few years. There is no indication of the Government's policy on the safe disposal of this infrastructure. We could presume that a team of consultants will be appointed, to be followed by another team, to be followed by rejection of the latter's recommendations and the Government's promotion of a response, possibly in ten years, that bears no relation to the original question. However, I hope the Luas saga will not be repeated on the marine environment.

Despite legislation, the risk of oil pollution remains large. Another Kowloon Bridge may be ready to disperse its unwanted cargo. The Irish National Petroleum Corporation, perhaps in the light of its recent Whitegate experience, has allocated a contingency fund of £1 million to pay to the mussel farmers and fishermen of Bantry Bay should the newly reopened Whiddy Island oil terminal bring in its wake unacceptable incidents of pollution. For many who depend on Bantry Bay for their livelihoods — it is an area of outstanding natural beauty — the possibility of oil pollution is not a question of if but more a matter of when and to what extent. Until the fear of oil pollution moves in public perception from being an inevitability to being a remote improbability the Government and Government agencies continue to have work to do.

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

I thank Deputies for their comments and support for this positive Bill, which will be very helpful. I have noted the points made in the debate. I remind the House of the OSPAR convention. The disposal of equipment is on the agenda and we will consider that matter. In my introductory speech I outlined as much as possible what is happening at present. The tugs I mentioned are particularly important; we need them and I am starting a process to try to secure them. By and large, the position is rapidly improving and this Bill will advance it considerably.

Mr. Finucane:

Perhaps the Minister will address our concerns in writing.

Dr. Woods:

I will do so. I thank Deputies for their co-operation in dealing with this Bill so quickly. Its provisions will come into operation on 16 May. Consequently, it is important that we are covered to the extent we can be by this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through committee, reported without amendment and passed.