I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am pleased to bring the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 2003 to the House. I look forward to Deputies' contributions. This short Bill is important and extremely urgent. It is specifically focused in so far as it deals exclusively with one important aspect of oil pollution – civil liability and compensation – as the title of the Bill indicates.
This Bill amends existing legislation to give effect to two internationally agreed instruments which, taken together, increase almost sixfold the limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution resulting from spills of persistent oil from tankers. The two instruments can be attributed to the reassessment at EU and international levels of many aspects of the regulatory arrangements regarding maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment, following the Erika disaster off the coast of France in December 1999. An examination of the arrangements which apply at international level regarding liability and compensation in respect of pollution caused by oil tankers was undertaken in this context.
Compensation is payable in accordance with the 1992 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, known as the liability convention, and the 1992 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, known as the fund convention. The Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Acts of 1988 and 1998 give effect to these conventions. The liability convention governs the liability of ship owners for oil pollution damage. The convention lays down the principle of strict liability for ship owners and creates a system of compulsory liability insurance. The ship owner is normally entitled to limit his or her liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of his or her ship. The fund convention is supplementary to the liability convention.
The main function of the international oil pollution compensation fund, the IOPCF, is to provide supplementary compensation for damage under the liability convention. The compensation payable by the IOPCF for any one incident is limited to 135 million special drawing rights, or SDRs, which equates to about €180 million. This includes the sum paid by the ship owner or his or her insurer under the liability convention. A claims manual has been published by the IOPCF to assist parties who have been affected by an incident in presenting claims. The first of the two internationally agreed instruments relates to the compensation levels which apply under the 1992 conventions.
While the examination has been under way at the IOPCF since the establishment of a working group in April 2000, it was considered that action needed to be taken in relation to compensation levels without awaiting the completion of the working group's business. The total amount of compensation – 135 million SDRs – fixed in the 1992 fund convention was considered unacceptably low. It was decided to increase the compensation levels by about 50% to a total of 203 million SDRs. The increases which are to apply internationally are to take effect on 1 November 2003. The Bill gives effect to these measures and accordingly needs to be enacted by that date.
While the IOPCF working group is continuing its examination, its deliberations have led to the adoption of a protocol to the fund convention in May 2003 at the International Maritime Organisation. The protocol is the second of the two instruments to which I referred earlier. It provides for the establishment of a supplementary compensation fund, which will further increase the amount of compensation payable to victims to 750 million SDRs, or approximately €1 billion. The supplementary fund was initially proposed by the European Commission as an EU measure. Member states preferred to pursue the matter in an international context, however, and adoption of the protocol with considerable support from EU states followed. Member states have been urged to introduce legislation to give effect to the protocol at the earliest opportunity, before the end of the year if possible. Annual contributions to the IOPCF are levied by the fund administration on oil importers in member states that have imported by sea more than 150,000 tonnes of oil in the previous calendar year.
Three importers in the State are liable for contributions to the fund: the ESB, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation and Aughinish Alumina. The size of annual contributions varies according to the amount of oil eligible for levy and the number and size of claims settled in any one year. Claims arising from a costly incident can push up the contribution required in a given year. The total contribution made by the Irish importers in 2002 was about €200,000. While it is not possible to estimate accurately the effects of the revised limits, it is not anticipated that the current contribution levels will be significantly affected.
The provision of adequate compensation for victims of oil pollution from tankers must be viewed as part of a wider framework involving the prevention of pollution and the response to incidents. I had hoped to introduce the provisions of this Bill as part of the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003, a wide ranging Bill relating to aspects of the marine environment which was published on 3 July 2003 and referred to the Seanad. The provisions relating to the increased limits have, however, been fast-tracked and published separately in view of the approaching deadline of 1 November.
The Bill as published was amended by the Seanad. It now includes amendments to the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Acts 1988 to 1998 which relate to the supplementary fund protocol. Drafting work had commenced in January 2003 prior to the adoption of the protocol at international level. Provisions relating to the protocol were not, therefore, included in the Bill as published. As both sets of provisions involve amendments to the same legislation, it was considered more efficient and rational to include both elements in the same Bill.
The Bill before us updates our legislation regarding civil liability arising out of pollution from oil tankers. The Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 updates our legislation on the protection of the marine environment by giving effect in our law to several internationally agreed instruments. These include: the Protocol to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage; the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships 2001; and Annexe Vl to the MARPOL Convention – the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, done at London on 2 November 1973, as amended by the protocol done at London on 17 February 1978, MARPOL 73/78. I look forward to discussing the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill with Deputies in due course.
I also mention the Sea Pollution (Hazardous and Noxious Substances) (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill 2000, which is currently before the House. This Bill gives effect in Irish law to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996, HNS convention. The Bill complements the arrangements regarding civil liability and compensation for oil pollution which are the subject of the Bill before us.
EU member states, including Ireland, have been to the fore in recent years in advocating improvements at international level in safety standards for ships and the protection of the marine environment. Ireland was one of a number of EU member states which co-sponsored the request to the International Maritime Organisation leading to the increased limits which are the subject of the Bill. EU member states were also prominent in advocating and supporting the adoption of the supplementary fund protocol.
Following the Erika incident, measures have been introduced or agreed on the regulation of ship classification societies; the accelerated phasing out of single hull oil tankers; the strengthening of port state control measures; and ship reporting arrangements. The European Maritime Safety Agency was established by regulation in August 2002 for the purpose of ensuring a high, uniform and effective level of maritime safety and prevention of pollution from ships within the EU. The agency is to enable the Commission to offer the full range of professional services needed to discharge its duties in this connection. All member states are represented on the board of the agency.
The reassessment process undertaken in the wake of the Erika incident was given added impetus in November 2002 when the Bahamas registered tanker Prestige, laden with 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, broke in two off the coast of Galicia, spilling an unknown but substantial quantity of its cargo. EU Ministers committed themselves to building on the progress made in the previous few years. To that end, a number of new measures were introduced.
The EU Council of Ministers and the Parliament have adopted a proposal by the Commission to further accelerate the phasing out of single hull tankers and to ban the carriage of heavy grades of fuel oil in single hull tankers. EU member states have requested the IMO to introduce similar arrangements to be applied internationally.
The Commission recently published a proposal to amend the regulations to provide the agency with the necessary legal competence on the pollution response and to specify its role in maritime security and the training of seafarers. This proposal is being examined at official working group level by the member states. A proposal by the Commission concerning sanctions for offences involving pollution of the marine environment is at present under consideration at EU official working group level.
Belgium, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom decided earlier this year to present the IMO with a joint request to designate certain maritime areas as particularly sensitive sea areas to strengthen its protection of particularly vulnerable areas. The limit of the PSSA proposed coincides with the 15th meridian, the Porcupine Bank, and includes part of the special waters of the north west Europe zone, as defined in the MARPOL Convention; the English Channel and coastal waters; and, certain parts of pollution response areas and exclusive economic zones along Spanish, French and Portuguese coasts. The aim of the exercise is to protect our marine environment and coastline from oil spills by discouraging vessels from entering into the PSSA. It was proposed to ban certain tankers. Others, for example, double hull and some single hull tankers, would have to state their intention to cross the area 48 hours in advance. The PSSA request was considered by the marine environment protection committee in July 2003. Irish experts from several Departments and agencies together with colleagues from five other states attended to support the request. The MEPC agreed in principle to the request for designation and referred the matter to an expert navigation committee for examination. This committee is expected to report to the MEPC next year. The MEPC did not accede to the request to ban tankers as proposed. It is open to the states concerned to introduce other protective measures. Possible proposals in this regard are being considered by the officials and experts concerned.
While attention has properly been given to disasters such as the Erika and the Prestige, I remind the House, as I pointed out in the Seanad when introducing the Bill, that in Ireland we succeeded earlier this year in averting a serious oil spill. The handling of the spill has been used as a model for other countries of how to react to such a disaster quickly and in a co-ordinated way. An incident occurred on 28 January 2002 off the coast of Donegal involving a 22 year old single hull Panamanian registered tanker, the Princess Eva, which had a potential for pollution similar to the Prestige or the Erika. The vessel was carrying 55,000 tonnes of heavy oil from Copenhagen to the United States. On 28 January 2003, the vessel experienced very heavy weather off the north west coast of Ireland. Following an accident on board in which two crew members were killed and another seriously injured, the vessel entered Donegal Bay where the two bodies were transferred to shore. An oil spill was averted due to the actions taken by the Irish Coast Guard and the maritime safety directorate of my Department.
Events such as these serve as a reminder of the vulnerability of our coastline. Ireland has, accordingly, consistently supported measures at EU and IMO level to bring about improvements in ship standards, better protection for the marine environment and adequate compensation for victims. I propose to continue with this approach. These events have also focused my attention on the provision of safety services. I am satisfied that the establishment of a single agency responsible for all safety matters is the best course of action. I intend to submit proposals to Government for decision in this regard as soon as possible. This matter is at present being discussed with trade unions and staff representatives with a view to resolving industrial relations issues which arise and charting the way forward for the development of marine safety services. I look forward to debating the legislation required with Members of the Oireachtas in due course.
This Bill, together with other measures which have been introduced or proposed, underlines the Government's commitment to ensuring that our legislation complies with accepted EU and international standards while addressing specific Irish concerns. This commitment is further underlined by the urgency accorded to this measure. It requires to be enacted by 1 November 2003, the date on which the increased limits come into effect internationally. It is in the interest of both the contributors and potential victims that this deadline be met. In the event of an incident off our coast, the increased limits would only apply if our legislation were in line with that which applied internationally. On the other hand, if an incident occurred which affected a state whose legislation gave effect to the increased limits, Irish contributors would be required to pay towards meeting the extra costs involved.
In the circumstances, I ask the House to deal with the Bill as expeditiously as possible. I made a similar request to the Seanad and am pleased to report that Senators readily acceded to it. I look forward to hearing Deputies' contributions and have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.