Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Oct 2003

Vol. 572 No. 6

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, to delete lines 14 to 32 and substitute the following:

"29A.–The European Communities (Civil and Commercial Judgments) Regulations 2002 are hereby amended by the insertion of the following regulation after regulation 3–

‘3A.–(1) Paragraph (2) shall apply only to a judgment of a Member State in relation to the Supplementary Fund (within the meaning of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Act 1988).

(2) The Brussels I Regulation and these Regulations apply in respect of a judgment of a Member State other than a court or tribunal of a territory of a Member State to which the Brussels I Regulation does not apply.'.".

On Committee Stage I asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he could indicate the number of international maritime safety conventions which had yet to be approved by the House. It seems to Opposition Members that the list is long. As the Ceann Comhairle will know, the Bill before us seeks to legislate for increased amounts of liability cover in respect of oil pollution but there are a number of other important conventions to which the Minister referred on Second Stage. These include the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems of Ships, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage and, in particular, Annex 6 of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78. The Minister told the select committee that the conventions were incorporated in the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003, of which this legislation was supposed to be a part.

While I understand the urgent need to meet the 1 November deadline, it seems the Minister is adopting a risky position by lethargically failing to legislate as soon as possible in respect of the conventions I have outlined. I hope he is not. It would probably have been better for the House if he had brought forward a full Bill during this session. What is the position on what appears to be a very long list of international conventions on marine safety and pollution which we have not yet ratified? They have a critical influence on our environment.

On Second Stage the Minister referred to the European Maritime Safety Agency which has just been established. While he is bringing proposals to Cabinet in relation to our arrangements in this area, is the agency something for which we will also have to legislate? This is a vast Department with a very important remit for crucial national resources both on land and at sea, which must be a key element in the Minister's thinking. Perhaps he will clarify the first point I made on this fairly non-controversial Bill which needs to be passed this week and then signed into law.

Regarding the definition section, could the Bill have been used, as the Labour Party believes, to have made some progress on the single hull issue? The Minister referred to sensitive sea areas, the PSSAs, to which he has given some attention and about which there have been extensive discussions at IMO level between Ireland and a number of other countries. Given his comments on Second and Committee and Stages, I am not clear if the 48-hour notice rule, which Ireland and a number of other countries are putting forward, will apply to single hulled vessels of fuel oil traversing our waters. Will these old 1970s ships, which have caused disaster after disaster, be consigned at long last to history? I was referring to the Oil Pollution (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Act 1998 and section 3 of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Act 1988 where there is a definition of ships. Will the Minister clarify whether he can take steps under this legislation to try to deal with some of the concerns raised on Second and Committee Stages?

The amendment before us is very simple. I asked the Minister on Second Stage if the Attorney General's office keeps a handbook to help Government Ministers and their staff to frame legislation. This would be helpful to the Labour Party when seeking to amend legislation. If such a handbook exists for the drafting of regulations or Bills, perhaps he would let the Opposition have a copy of either or both, which would be very helpful.

My amendment seeks to delete lines 14 to 32 in page 7 and substitute a textual amendment of the European Communities (Civil and Commercial Judgments) Regulations 2002 as follows:

29A.–The European Communities (Civil and Commercial Judgments) Regulations 2002 are hereby amended by the insertion of the following regulation after regulation 3–

'3A.–(1) Paragraph (2) shall apply only to a Judgment of a Member State in relation to the Supplementary Fund (within the meaning of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Act 1988).

(2) The Brussels I Regulation and these Regulations apply in respect of a Judgment of a Member State other than a court or tribunal of a territory of a Member State to which the Brussels I Regulation does not apply.'.".

What the Labour Party proposes to do is to improve the drafting of the Bill. We understand that the Attorney General's office decided recently to make just textual amendments rather than non-textual amendments, which are more difficult to understand. We have tried to directly amend the regulation rather than simply refer to it. The Minister said on Second Stage that he is not prepared to accept this but we believe it is better drafting practice.

I thank the Deputy for his comments and for tabling the amendment. As I said on Committee Stage, I cannot accept the amendment on the advice of the Attorney General.

I thank the Opposition for allowing us the opportunity to introduce the Bill earlier than anticipated because of the 1 November deadline. The other conventions to which the Deputy referred will be included in the miscellaneous provisions Bill which is being taken in the Seanad on Thursday. We are not aware of any other conventions that must be put in place by way of regulation or primary legislation.

As regards the European Maritime Safety Agency, we are represented on that agency by an assistant secretary from my Department. We are fully active in that regard. On the booklet regarding preparation of regulations, if my memory serves me correctly, my assistant secretary informed me on Committee Stage that a booklet is available, which will be made available to the Deputy. Perhaps the Deputy will come back to me if he does not receive the booklet.

Given that the amendment is fairly complicated, I will explain why I do not intend to accept it. Section 11 inserts a new Part 4A in the 1988 Act. Part IV (sections 25 to 29) deals with the recognition and enforcement of judgments in accordance with Article 8 of the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992. The text of section 25 extends these provisions to the recently adopted supplementary fund, to which I referred on Committee Stage, without the need for amendment. Article 8, paragraph 2 of the supplementary fund protocol provides for the application of other rules provided their effect is to ensure that judgments are recognised and enforced at least to the same extent.

This provision was included at the request of the European Commission in light of Regulation 44/2001EC on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters which was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22 December 2000 and came into force on 1 March 2002. The regulation is binding on all EU member states with the exception of Denmark. Regulation 44/2001 was adopted following the conclusions of the 1999 meeting of the European Council in Tampere and the Council programme of measures for the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters.

Denmark, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty of the European Union and the treaty establishing the European Community, is not bound by this regulation nor subject to its application. S.I. No. 52 of 2002 gives effect to 44/2001/EC in this State. Part 4A provides for SI 52/2002 to apply in respect of EU member states other than Denmark.

The amendment proposed by Deputy Broughan provides for the text of SI 52/2002 to be amended. As I advised on Committee Stage, I am satisfied that the text of section 11 now before us is adequate to ensure compliance with the regulation as far as the supplementary fund protocol is concerned, that is, that it is totally unnecessary to amend SI 52 of 2002. In the circumstances I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

There are a number of things I wish to say about the legislation. In regard to drafting, our legal advice is that it is well drafted for the purpose it seeks to achieve. For that reason no technical amendments have been tabled by my party. Whereas we had some reservations regarding the pace at which this legislation has gone through both Houses and is now being finalised, its content appears sound.

I support Deputy Broughan on the issues he raised in regard to single hulled tankers and the creation of special areas of protection at sea, out of which I hope we can keep single hulled tankers. In other words, as tankers pass by the Irish coastline and the European coastline the intention is to keep them a certain distance off shore in the event of accidents. Ireland should lead the debate rather than go along with other European countries which are proposing change. Ireland is, perhaps, more vulnerable than any other European country given that it has 11% of European waters, is on the western periphery of Europe and many foreign oil tankers travel through its waters on a daily and weekly basis.

The Minister has said he intends to amalgamate the maritime safety directorate and the Irish Coast Guard. Is it his intention that the new marine safety agency will assume responsibility for managing a crisis in the event of a serious oil spillage or a tanker becoming involved in an accident?

On the issue of our capacity to know at all times the number of ships and oil tankers passing through Irish waterways, has the Minister plans to increase aerial surveillance through our air force or satellite surveillance of Irish waters? Ireland is required to survey about 140,000 square miles at all times. Apart from that I am pleased the legislation will be passed before the 1 November deadline. This is important legislation for an island that is vulnerable to an oil spillage or an accident at sea. In recent years other European countries have suffered the consequences of, for example, the Prestige in Spain and accidents in the Bay of Biscay. I am pleased the levels of compensation have been increased by 50% by the international fund, the supplementary fund and the insured boat owners.

I welcome the legislation and am happy to support it.

I echo many of the comments of my colleague. I thank the staff of the Department and the Minister for the briefing. It was unfortunate last week that Committee Stage of the Bill clashed with the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources which debated the important issue of mobile phones. While we have a good deal of territory to cover in this portfolio, we are just the hurlers on the ditch. Obviously it would have been beneficial if we could have been in two places at the one time last week but that was not possible and we had to be in the House.

I commend the general principle of the Bill. It is another development in this area. I hope the other oil pollution Bill, to which the Minister referred, will be published as soon as possible to enable us move forward another stage in regard to the protection of our coastline. Clearly, as an island nation, the primary responsibility rests with us. We should take an increasingly hard line on this in regard to mariners, shipping companies and so on who use our waters. I commend the Minister on the 25% port inspection rate which he has increased greatly during the past year or 18 months under the Paris memorandum. However, much work remains to be done.

Will the Minister comment on the 48 hour notice required for particularly sensitive sea areas? Will that happen in the near future or is there any way in which the Government can make it happen? Under this Bill, liability refers to ships. Clearly, single hulled ships are covered as are the desirable double hulled ships. Maritime safety is critical for the economy and the nation. In the Dublin region we consider that the closure of the Dublin Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre would be a backward step. It has been compared to the moving of Air Traffic Control from Dublin Airport to Shannon or Galway. I fought here for the three maritime marine rescue co-ordination centres – the three radio centres – at Valentia, Malin and Dublin, to remain in existence. I hope the Minister will reconsider that matter given the critical importance of maritime safety on the busy Irish Sea, where 80,000 to 100,000 people may be traversing it and, perhaps, five or six major ships, carrying fuel oil and other toxic cargoes, may be moving up and down. It is important the marine rescue co-ordination centre remains.

I commend the Bill. I hope that the full maritime safety Bill, which will deal with dangerous cargoes, will come before the House as soon as possible.

I disagree with Deputy Broughan that we are hurlers on the ditch, we are probably closer to substitutes. I hope the good electorate, or the manager, will have us on the pitch rapidly to replace the Minister.

God help us and God help the country.

We look forward to it.

Such a motley crew.

If there was a sports commentary at half time it would be fairly scathing at present. The Minister would be akin to one of those rugby teams which have been slaughtered in Australia. He would be the Namibia of the sports world.

Hope springs eternal.

It is good in our limited role as substitutes on the side of the pitch to be able to help the Minister out of his trouble. I said on Second Stage that the Minister arrives regularly with the homework done at the last minute on Sunday night. It was nice to be able to get it through in that case. It is regrettable it was not possible to combine the various Bills in one simple Bill. Given the support which he sees from the Opposition, where there are sensible improvements in terms of environmental protection in particular, Members are willing to facilitate rapid passage of the Bill. If we have learned anything from this, I hope it is that we will move towards more consolidated Bills rather than taking one Bill after another. It would save the time of this House, would lead to better debate and, I imagine, would order the work of the Minister's Department in a better way. That is one lesson from the passage of this Bill.

While I do not think the Minister heard my speech on Second Stage, I was interested in what he said on the possible designation of special areas of waters to the north and west of Ireland but it was slightly unclear as to the likelihood of change. I understood the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, had ruled this out but the Minister made it look as if it was being reconsidered, given that various countries had put together a joint proposal for the north-west Atlantic. I am keen to hear whether this is something we think can be progressed. If so, we should use every effort to achieve this.

I raised the issue of the financial consequences on several occasions. On the potential financial consequences of a maritime disaster, we are talking of figures of €500 million-€700 million in com pensation or as an insurance fund. Will the Minister consider bringing these facts to the land-locked Minister for Finance in County Kildare to press on him the importance for us to provide proper resources in respect of maritime safety, in particular, the provision of a proper maritime tug for the west coast? This is important. When we look at the potential costs of a maritime accident, the cost of a tug increasingly justifies itself, even to a Minister for Finance reluctant to invest in this area.

This need extends further given the recent evidence in respect of two US Navy merchant vessels approaching the south-west to be scrapped in Hartlepool. I imagine they are approaching ever closer every day. The Minister's response is that we have contracted tugs from the European mainland in the event of an emergency. This impresses on me that we have not made proper provision for maritime safety or protecting the west, north and south coasts. I encourage the Minister to use the figures from the Bill which show what the international community says is the likely cost of a maritime accident. We should do whatever we can to try to prevent such accidents.

I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about special areas of conservation. We look forward to his early substitution.

We will not be substituted on this side of the House for some time.

That is not the Minister's decision.

It is for the electorate to decide.

While the two parties on this side of the House may have faults, how could Deputies Broughan, Coveney, Ryan and perhaps Sinn Féin and some Independent Members sit around the Cabinet table and agree on even the simplest issue?

There was a very successful rainbow Government in the past.

I could not envisage agreement when on most issues they are diametrically opposed. One only needs to look at what has happened in the recent past in Private Members' time when Fine Gael voted one way while the rest voted the other. That is a classic example. Since the Dáil resumed, the Opposition groups have not been on the same side in one argument.

We do not need a lecture on how we should work.

I thank Deputies for allowing me to get the Bill through. It is important because the deadline is 1 November by which date we need to have the legis lation passed. I agree that it would have been preferable to try to bring forward three Bills in one but the Attorney General's office had a different view. Because of the deadline, we had to take this Bill on its own but the debate on the miscellaneous provisions Bill will start in the Seanad next Thursday.

We have been leading the charge with regard to changes at EU level, particularly in the aftermath of the Prestige disaster. As I said on Committee Stage, it is easy for us to do this because we do not own any single hull oil tankers. It is more difficult for countries like Greece which, because it includes 3,000 islands, has difficult decisions to make with regard to the transportation of oil from island to island. On the banning of single hull vessels, with Spain, France and Portugal, we were the prime movers in the bringing forward of the deadline which was 2015 but is now 2008. As of this year, the phasing out of such tankers has commenced.

On the issue of PSSAs, sensitive areas around the seas, Ireland was to the fore in moving that this should be mooted by a number of EU countries at IMO level. The IMO has agreed, in principle, to examine the issue. With five other countries, we are putting the case in which I hope we will be successful.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of tracking, of which there is a limited amount. However, under a new EU ship tracking directive, which we are to bring forward by February, there will be much greater monitoring of ships entering and leaving EU waters.

On the issue of port state control, as Deputy Broughan said, over a year ago our percentage was low. Today, at over 30%, it is one of the highest in the European Union. The reason for this is that we took on nine or ten extra marine surveyors. Our record is good. I hope it will continue to be so.

The Princess Eva was successfully dealt with and used at EU level as an example to other countries of how to deal with this type of crisis – immediately and in a co-ordinated way. I thank the Irish Coast Guard and the marine safety directorate for the work they did. While the crisis was not hugely publicised, it was a huge logistical issue to put right. I add a word of caution. The ship was examined a fortnight earlier as part of port state control procedures in a port in the European Union. It left port and got into difficulty in the Atlantic. On the proposal for the amalgamation of the maritime safety directorate and the Irish Coast Guard, I believe they should be co-ordinated into one body which will be responsible for managing any disasters that may happen, as instanced by Deputy Coveney.

On the proposal for the establishment of coastguard monitoring stations, I have visited Valentia and I am more than happy that the service is capable of dealing with the situation. My information is that the service in Malin is also capable. A couple of weeks ago, because of an asbestos problem in Dublin, staff had to move to Valentia. Moni toring of the coastline was undertaken in both Valentia and Malin without a problem. It is not a matter of saving money. The money will be reinvested in the service. I am assured by the officials involved that there will be no difficulties in co-ordination. I would not like Deputies to suggest that any air-sea, or coastal rescue service will be reduced because of this. That is not the case.

Do not take any chances with safety.

Massive investment has taken place in the Coast Guard and maritime safety over the last six years. When I did the Estimates last year, I decided this area would not take a cut in funding because it is one in which we must continually invest to ensure safety. In the past we had to rely on the British for rescue services around our coast but now they rely on us. Our service is second to none in Europe. We have been well served by the investment which will continue.

I welcome the positive comments of Deputies about the Bill. I hope when it is passed, we can move on to deal with the other issues which will be addressed in the miscellaneous provisions Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn