Seanad debates

Thursday, 23 October 2003

Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

 

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

10:30 am

Photo of John BrowneJohn Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased that this important Bill has been introduced in the Seanad. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on it and I look forward to hearing Senators' contributions.

The Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 is, as its title indicates, a wide-ranging Bill relating to aspects of the marine environment. It updates our legislation on the protection of the marine environment through 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 – OPRC; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage – the Bunkers Convention; the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems for Ships, 2001 – AFS Convention; and Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention – the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships done at London on the 2 November 1973 as amended by the protocol done at London on 17 February 1978, known as MARPOL 73/78. The Bill also amends Part III of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992.

The Sea Pollution (Amendment) Act 1999 gives effect to the OPRC. The convention was designed to ensure that proper arrangements are in place in each member state of the International Maritime Organisation to deal with emergencies arising from spillages of oil into the sea. Resolution 10 of the 1990 conference that adopted the OPRC invited the IMO to initiate work to develop an appropriate instrument to expand the scope of the OPRC to apply, in whole or in part, to pollution incidents by hazardous substances other than oil and prepare a proposal to this end. The IMO adopted a protocol to that effect in March 2000.

The 1999 Act provides for the preparation of oil pollution emergency plans by harbour authorities and operators of offshore installations and oil handling facilities and their submission to the Minister for approval. It also provides that the Minister may direct a local authority to prepare and submit such a plan for approval. The Irish Coastguard, formerly known as the Irish Marine Emergency Service, which was set up in 1991 as part of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, has been designated as the national response agency and has made the necessary arrangements to give effect to the convention. The Irish Coastguard is also to be similarly designated for the purposes of the protocol. The Bill amends the 1999 Act to give effect to the terms of the protocol.

Ships travel faster through the water and consume less fuel when their hulls are clean and smooth and free from fouling organisms, such as barnacles, algae and molluscs. Therefore, they are coated with anti-fouling systems. During the 1960s, the chemical industry developed efficacious and cost-effective anti-fouling paints using metallic compounds, particularly the organotin compound tributyltin, TBT. By the 1970s most seagoing vessels had TBT paints on their hulls. During the 1960s the chemical industry developed efficacious and cost effective anti-fouling paints using metallic compounds, in particular, the organotin compound tributyltin – TBT. By the 1970s most seagoing vessels had TBT paints on their hulls.

The awareness of the harmful environmental effects of organotin compounds gradually grew in the late 1980s. Scientific studies have shown that organotin compounds, particularly TBT, used as anti-fouling systems on ships pose a substantial risk of adverse impacts on ecologically and economically important marine organisms. The IMO held a diplomatic conference on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems for ships from 1 to 5 October 2001, which adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships 2001. This convention provides rules to ban the use of organotin based anti-fouling systems – TBT – which are harmful to the marine environment and provides a mechanism through which other harmful anti-fouling systems may be banned or regulated in the future on a global basis.

The use of organotin anti-fouling compounds has been restricted in the State under by-law 657 of 1987. This by-law did not, however, apply to any boat used or intended for use solely on the sea, whose hull is made of aluminium alloy or whose overall length is more than 25 metres. The convention applies to all vessels and will enter into force 12 months after its ratification by at least 25 states representing at least 25% of the world's tonnage, a target which has yet to be reached. The convention includes fixed application dates, namely, 1 January 2003 for the prohibition of the application of TBT coatings on ships and 1 January 2008 for the elimination of active TBT coatings on ships.

European Union member states were prominent in promoting this measure and were anxious that the terms of the convention be applied as far as possible at the earliest possible date. Accordingly, the application of TBT has been prohibited on European Union ships and ships entering EU ports as of 1 July 2003 in advance of entry into force of the convention. European Union member states have been urged to introduce the legislation necessary to ratify the convention as soon as possible. Ireland has consistently advocated a ban on anti-fouling systems to apply internationally as set out in the convention and should, accordingly, introduce the necessary legislation to enable the State to ratify it as soon as possible. The Bill fulfils this requirement.

The Sea Pollution Act 1991 makes provision for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil and other substances and to give effect to 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, also known as the MARPOL Convention. Regulations covering the various sources of ship generated pollution were originally contained in the five annexes of the convention.

MARPOL is continually under review at the marine environment protection committee of the International Maritime Organisation and amendments are adopted as considered necessary. The convention has been modified by the protocol of 1997, whereby a sixth annex was added relating to prevention of air pollution from ships. The Bill amends the 1991 Act to enable regulations relating to annex VI, the prevention of air pollution from ships, to be made.

The Bunkers Convention builds on arrangements which are in place at international level in relation to civil liability and compensation, arising out of oil spills from tankers, which have been adopted in connection with the carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea – HNS. Senators will recall the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 2003, which was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas recently and updates our legislation with regard to spills from tankers. The Bunkers Convention introduces a civil liability regime for ships other than oil tankers.

The Sea Pollution (Hazardous and Noxious Substances) (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill 2000 currently before the Dáil 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 Bunkers Convention complements the conventions relating to liability and compensation in respect of oil spills from tankers and hazardous and noxious substances. This Bill similarly complements the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Acts and the HNS Bill through introducing arrangements in respect of spills of bunker oil.

Section 15(6)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 empowers the Minister to refuse to grant a licence to the owner of a passenger boat who has been convicted of an offence. Section 16(2) gives the Minister powers to suspend or revoke a licence where an owner fails or refuses to comply with a condition of a licence, but the provision only applied to the vessel to which the licence applies. The Minister has no powers in relation to any other vessel that the owner may have, that is, the Minister can only act with regard to the boat in respect of which the convictions were made but cannot do anything about any additional boat the owner may have. The proposed amendment will enable the Minister to revoke any or all passenger boat licences held by an individual who has been guilty of an offence, even when the offence has occurred on another vessel. The penalty provisions in the Act in respect of passenger boats will also be amended to bring them into line with the current maximum permissible.

Those are the elements of the Bill. It would assist the House in its consideration of the Bill to refer to the context in which it is being introduced. Owing to the international nature of shipping, action to prevent pollution of the marine environment is most effective when taken by agreement at regional or international level. Our valuable but vulnerable coastline has convinced us of the importance of achieving the highest standards of safety on ships. Ireland has consistently supported measures in this regard at European Union and international levels. It is important, therefore, that our legislation complies with accepted European Union and international standards while addressing specific Irish concerns.

The condition of the marine environment does not remain unchanged but is continually evolving. Similarly, the state of international shipping and other factors which affect the marine environment are continually changing. International and other instruments are accordingly kept under review and updated as required. The Erika incident off the coast of France in December 1999 led to a reassessment at European Union and international levels of many aspects of the regulatory arrangements which apply regarding maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment. This process 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 in Spain, spilling an unknown but substantial quantity of its cargo.

Following the Erika incident measures have been introduced or agreed as regards the compensation available to victims of pollution by oil tankers – as I stated, legislation to give effect to these measures was passed recently by the Oireachtas; 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. In addition, 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 ships within the European Union. 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.

Following the Prestige incident, European Union Ministers committed themselves to building on the progress which had been made during the previous few years. To that end, a number of new measures were introduced. The Council of Ministers and 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. Member states have requested the IMO to introduce similar arrangements to be applied internationally. A proposal by the Commission concerning sanctions for offences involving pollution of the marine environment is under consideration at EU official working group level.

Belgium, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom decided earlier this year to present the International Maritime Organisation with a joint request to designate certain maritime areas a particularly sensitive sea area – PSSA – to strengthen its protection of particularly vulnerable areas. The limit of the PSSA proposed coincides with the 15th meridian, the Porcupine Bank, and includes parts of the special waters of the north-west Europe zone as defined under 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 particularly sensitive sea area. It was proposed to ban certain tankers and others, for example, double hulls 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 MEPC in July 2003. Irish experts from several Departments and agencies together with colleagues from the other five 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.

The Minister, when introducing the Oil Pollution (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill earlier this month, reminded the House that in Ireland we succeeded earlier this year in averting a serious oil spill. 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 the potential for pollution similar to the Prestige or the Erika. The vessel was carrying 55,000 tonnes of heavy oil from Copenhagen to the USA. On 28 January 2003, the vessel experienced heavy weather off the north west coast of Ireland. Following an accident on board in which two crew members were killed and another severely 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 and of the importance of adequate protection for the marine environment. These events have also focused the Minister's attention on the provision of safety services. He is satisfied that the establishment of a single agency responsible for all safety matters is the best course of action. He intends 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. The Minister and I look forward to debating the legislation required with Members of the Oireachtas in due course.

This Bill is part of the process of providing adequate protection for our marine environment. I look forward to hearing Senators' contributions and have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Department's officials for sending me a briefing note on the Bill. This is a composite measure to implement international conventions and protocols, which is why it is described as a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We have been discussing pollution at sea a great deal lately, particularly oil pollution. This Bill is part of a cohesive package to deal with that area.

The Minister of State mentioned the banning of TBT, the chemical used on the hulls of vessels, and said that it would apply to 25% of the world's tonnage. The European Union is good at legislating on these matters and operates as a single entity. However, many ships operate under flags of convenience. The protocols, conventions and so forth will affect 25% of ships but what will happen with the other 75%? Has the International Maritime Organisation looked at this in the context of non-EU countries and shipping companies? This is obviously effective in the European context but if we want to protect the marine environment it must be implemented on a 100% basis or it will not be successful. Does the International Maritime Organisation look at the global situation and seek to apply it to the other 75% of shipping?

Recent incidents have focused our attention on the vulnerability of our coastline. As an island country, we must always be conscious of it and support measures which will assist in eliminating pollution at sea. It is most important for our coastline, our marine economy and the tourism sector. If we wish to focus people's minds on these Bills, we need only talk about two recent incidents rather than talking about the technical aspects. The Minister of State spoke about one of them. The other is the break up of the Prestige last November off the Galician coast when 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil spilled into the sea. We were reminded every night by the television of the effects it had on the coastline of Galicia in Spain and its impact on the tourism industry and the local community. It forcefully brought home to viewers what can happen as a result of such incidents. Interestingly, the vessel was registered in the Bahamas. Would the convention regarding TBT apply to Bahamas registered vessels or are these vessels part of the 75% I mentioned earlier?

I agree with the proposal to put marine safety under the remit of a single body. The people of Donegal should be complimented on how they dealt with the Princess Eva. We were fortunate that as a result of their efforts the 55,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil did not end up on the Donegal coastline. The Prestige incident demonstrates the importance of this and what can go wrong. Fortunately, the same thing did not happen with the Princess Eva. When we discussed the Oil Pollution (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill I suggested that we should have a suitable type of tug vessel available. I am interested that the Minister is entering discussions with the UK to consider, given the expenditure involved, whether it is possible for both Governments to acquire a vessel to deal with the eventuality of a ship breaking up and threatening our shoreline. The new research vessel could act as a holding mechanism for a ship but it would not have the towing capacity. If we had a vessel in place to prepare for and deal with pollution at sea incidents, the jigsaw of an effective marine safety mechanism would be complete.

I will digress a little to voice my concerns about another area in the marine sector. Bord Iascaigh Mhara has always been identified with fish and it has been a successful marketing engine for the marine industry. I am concerned about talks, which appear to be at an advanced stage, on merging Bord Bia with BIM. Has this been thought out fully? I am concerned for the marine industry and the respect it is accorded. It suffered a blip with the formation of the new Government when people in the industry felt it was being left out because it was no longer a separate ministerial entity. However, it was combined with communications and natural resources and they were reasonably happy with that. This industry is having problems at present, particularly with regard to the catch it is permitted, and this development will aggravate it further. I will be surprised if there is not an outcry against the proposal to merge BIM with Bord Bia.

It was always considered necessary to have a separate entity to market fish. Most of our fish is exported so it is most important that this entity remain in place. The Minister of State's colleague from Wexford will have a short honeymoon as chairman of BIM if the two bodies are to be merged, although perhaps he will emerge as the chairman of both bodies. The fishing industry is worth €547 million in exports and there should be careful consideration before merging BIM and Bord Bia. I would expect a reaction against it.

It is not the first time this idea has been floated. It was floated a few years ago when I was a Member of the Lower House. There was a strong belief in the Department of Agriculture and Food that it would be worthwhile. I was pressed by senior members of the Government to support the idea but I had extreme reservations. People in the industry, particularly Joey Murrin, rang me at the time urging me not to support it because it would weaken the industry. I respected his comments. I ask the Minister of State to give careful consideration to that matter and to the position of the marine industry in general.

I made most of the comments I wish to make on this matter in respect of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill. The Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will be debating aquaculture in the near future. I hope the Minister of State will have received the legal advice before that debate takes place because, as stated previously, we are anxious that the aquaculture industry should be seen as respectable and should enjoy consumer confidence. Consumers should feel that the industry is operating to proper standards, etc. I look forward to the legal advice being finalised at an early date, hopefully before the committee engages in its debate on aquaculture.

This Bill is another important component in the mechanisms to deal with pollution. It is all very well that people are good consumers and that they respect the marine environment. However, the International Maritime Organisation must consider this matter in global terms. It is correct that the EU should make provision in respect of it for its member states but I would be concerned if it were not dealt with on a worldwide basis.

The Minister of State referred success in terms of replacing single-hull vessels which carry major risks in terms of oil pollution. To what degree have double-hull vessels replaced their single-hull counterparts? Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on that matter.

Photo of Brendan KenneallyBrendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on the Bill. However, I must admit to being somewhat confused because two weeks ago we debated the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 2003, which is similar to a large extent to the measure before us. Part of that confusion arises because I assumed the protocol to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 would have been included in the previous Bill. However, I am sure there are very good reasons for its inclusion here. I have also noticed some other similarities with the previous Bill, including the conversion of international units of account into the currency of the State and also the issuing of compulsory insurance certificates.

We cannot have any discussion on the pollution of the sea without considering the marine environment and particularly the urgent restoration and maintenance of fish stocks. It is important that there should be a strengthening of regional fisheries organisations and we should also include improved data collection and compliance with the various measures laid down by different states.

Global sustainable development and poverty reduction require healthier and more sustainably managed oceans and seas. The fisheries sector alone is the main source of protein for 1 billion people, as well as being a major provider of livelihoods as it gives rise to some 5% to 10% of the world's food supply. There is growing pressure on the marine environment. The decline in marine biodiversity and the depletion of fish stocks are of increasing concern, as is the use of flags of convenience, particularly for fishing vessels, as a means to avoid management conservation measures. This is hardly a new phenomenon as the use of flags of convenience has been responsible for greatly reduced standards of safety and manning levels, leading to all manner of difficulties, accidents and disasters. The recent sinking of the Prestige has again demonstrated that tanker safety and pollution prevention have to be further improved.

The International Maritime Organisation is primarily concerned with the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution, but it has also introduced regulations covering liability and compensation for damage such as pollution caused by ships. In March 2001, the International Maritime Organisation finalised a new convention to apply the principles of the Civil Liability Convention to all types of commercial shipping such as bulk carriers and container ships. This convention, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001, better known as the Bunkers Convention, provides for ship owners to be strictly liable for fuel oil spills and requires them to carry compulsory insurance to cover any pollution damage following such a spill. In accordance with a commitment in the Government's ocean policy, Australia was closely involved in the development of this convention which is expected to enter into force internationally within the next few years.

In November 2001, the European Commission made a proposal for a decision of the Council authorising the ratification of the Bunkers Convention. The regulatory objective of the convention is to provide adequate, prompt and effective financial compensation to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil when carried as fuel in ships' bunkers. It is applicable to damage caused in the territory, including the territorial sea and in exclusive economic zones of states parties. This authorisation was necessary because there was a legislative gap between EU law, on one hand, and international liability conventions, on the other. As a consequence, member states did not have the authority to ratify this convention by themselves as only the Union has the right to negotiate, conclude and fulfil the international commitments set up by it. However, only states may become contracting parties to the convention and, therefore, a situation arose whereby neither EU member states nor the Union were in a position to approve the convention. The Council decision exceptionally authorising ratification of the convention by member states was proposed in order to solve this problem.

In its communication following the Prestige accident, the European Commission repeated that the total level of compensation available should be augmented to €1 billion. Furthermore, in the communication, the Commission reiterates the need to introduce penal sanctions against any person – including legal persons – who has caused a pollution incident through grossly negligent behaviour. The Commission also reiterated its proposal arguing for the need to amend the international oil pollution compensation regime so that the right of ship owners to limit their financial liability will be abolished.

This is an important point and the example often taken is the loss of income suffered by tourist resorts where oil pollution in their areas caused people to stay away, thereby resulting in an economic loss to traders and hoteliers. One of the most recent disasters of this nature in European waters was caused by the sinking of the oil tanker Erika on Sunday, 12 December 1999. It was carrying 26,000 tonnes of fuel oil and it broke in two 60 miles off the beautiful coastline of Brittany in France. A coastguard official, referring to the impending environmental disaster that eventually struck 250 miles of French coastline, said that there was a clear danger of pollution but could not indicate how serious it would be. The seriousness soon became apparent. It became an environmental and economic disaster, with wide reaching consequences, not just directly for the environment and for bird and marine life, but also for the people who rely on the sea or tourism of Brittany and coastal regions further south for a living.

The spill caused havoc along the mid-western coast of France in the vicinity of one of its busiest seaside resorts, La Baule, which caters for hundreds of thousands of French and international tourists each year. In addition to the trade of this major resort being seriously disrupted and a huge threat being caused to its lucrative tourist trade, the fishing industry, consisting of many different interests, was also devastated. Overall losses to the sea industry have been a grim reality for the many Bretons who rely on the fruits of the sea to earn a living. This stretch of coast has many oyster beds that were contaminated with oil and, as a result, many oyster farmers have gone out of business. So too have the freelance fishermen who rely on collecting cockles, mussels and clams at low tide, a precarious living at the best of times. The sea-salt industry, situated on the marshy land just inside the coast, was also threatened by the polluted water. However, the greatest impact has been for sea birds. Over 20 times more were killed than when the Amoco Cadiz sank in 1978 spilling 233,000 tonnes of oil. This is due to the fact that many more birds were wintering in the region at the time of the Erika's break-up.

In economic terms, concern over oil pollution reduced bookings to the coastal resorts which rely heavily on the seasonal tourist trade. The French Government had to mount a major clean-up operation along the coast. However, despite the provision of huge resources, a fear of the carcinogenic effects of the deadly oil remained for some time. A constituent of mine who is familiar with the area, told me of the terrible effect the disaster has had on the region. A favourite pastime of the local population was to walk out along the shore at low tide and collect the wild oysters from the rich beds. They would come back to their village carrying buckets full of oysters, a natural bonus to those lucky enough to live in the area. The Erika disaster put paid this. While financial compensation might help the affected population economically, no amount of money could compensate them for the psychological damage a simple coastal community suffered because of this disaster.

It is worth mentioning that the Bunkers Convention is accompanied by an IMO resolution which urges all contracting states to ratify or accede to the 1996 protocol to the 1976 convention, thereby providing greatly increased funds against which claims, including Bunker pollution claims, can be brought. However, there are still difficulties in the insurance area and some effort has been made to restrict the burden of this obligation. Only the registered shipowner is required to have insurance and that is restricted to ships over 1,000 tonnes and even this figure appears to have been a compromise. Not surprisingly, the shipowners' organisations and their insurers argued for the highest threshold possible, while coastal states argued that it should be as low as possible so that the maximum number of incidents would fall within the insurance requirement.

The convention allows the contracting states to declare that registered owners are not required to maintain insurance or other financial security to cover Bunker pollution claims where their vessels are engaged exclusively on domestic voyages, that is, voyages within the territorial seas of the state regardless of the size of the ships. I ask the Minister to clarify Ireland's position in this respect.

I notice there is an exclusion for shipowners which excludes liability or damage resulting from an act of war, or if it is caused by the act or omission of a third party with intent to cause damage – for example, sabotage – or that which is caused by the negligence or wrongful act of any government or other authority responsible for maintaining navigational aids. This provision could also include the present scourge of international terrorism, of which we have seen too many major and spectacular acts in recent years.

As is often the case, two or even more ships can cause a pollution incident. Article 5 provides that in such a case and where it is not possible to determine from which ship the pollution came, then all the ships involved will be held jointly and severally liable. This means that any party can be sued for the whole of the claim or each can be sued for a proportion.

No debate is needed on the question of single hull vessels that are used as oil tankers on our seas. Many of the worst pollution disasters have been caused by damage to these vessels and we must apply as much pressure as possible on those countries and companies which continue to use single-hull vessels to discontinue the practice in the best interests of global society. We have too many examples over the last 30 or 40 years, of which the French experience is only one, of massive damage being done to our environment, in many of those cases in circumstances that could have been relatively easily avoided. We have suffered our own share of oil pollution and one need look no further back than the Whiddy Island disaster when the Betelgeuse exploded with the loss of 50 lives. Of less significance, though extremely important in their own right, were the huge environmental and legal problems it caused.

This Bill is a step in the right direction and a visible effort on the part of the Government to discharge our own and international obligations and try to put pressure on those who treat our environment and our safety procedures with disdain. I commend the Bill to the House.

Photo of John BrowneJohn Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators for their thoughts and constructive contributions on this Bill. While Senator Kenneally talked about confusion, I do not think it is easy to confuse a Waterford Senator. He has a good grasp of the problems of the sea and the coastline.

Senator Finucane raised the issues of TBTs. The convention will take effect and apply internationally once 25% is achieved. After the accession states join the Union, the EU will control 40% of the world's tonnage.

Senator Finucane also raised the availability of a tug. We are holding ongoing discussions with Britain in this area. However, we have a certain level of response and the Irish Coastguard has anti-pollution equipment stockpiles in Dublin, Killybegs and Castletownbere. There is also a pool of trained personnel from harbour and local authorities who have attended national training courses and can be called upon. The coastguard also has contracts with specialist companies experienced in oil spill response to provide equipment and personnel in the event of a tier three response. The Irish Coastguard maintains close links with the EC's civil protection and environmental accident unit and can call for immediate assistance should an event similar to the Prestige incident occur in the Irish pollution responsibility zone. As a result of this co-operation, the Irish Coastguard sent 1,200 metres of boom and oil recovery equipment to Spain to assist Spanish authorities in dealing with the Prestige incident.

We are in the process of acceding to the Bonn agreement between north European countries which provides for mutual support in marine pollution incidents. Ireland is a member of the EU pollution management committee which can provide experts and support from EU countries in response to a call from a member state.

Recently, the Irish Coastguard received funding to provide for a marine pollution and salvage section. In the past, the coastguard has successfully responded to all incidents. To prove the handling of the Princess Eva was not just good luck but also good management, the coastguard has successfully responded to nine incidents this year involving vessels that posed a threat of marine pollution.

Senator Finucane also mentioned Bord Bia and BIM. While I am not passing the buck, the Minister is dealing with this issue.

Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is within the Minister of State's remit at the Department and he is also a Wexford man.

Photo of John BrowneJohn Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The chairman of BIM, Hugh Byrne, is also a Wexford man.

Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know that and I would not like him to have a short honeymoon.

Photo of John BrowneJohn Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is nothing wrong with looking at how we market our products. I know BIM has met with the Minister and Members from all sides of the House have made representations on the issue. It is under discussion and I will keep the Senator informed as the debate evolves.

Senator Finucane also raised the single-hull ban. The regulation has been in force in the EU since 21 October 2003. EU member states seeking similar arrangements must apply to international standards.

In response to an issue raised by Senator Kenneally, the previous Bill was fast tracked to meet the deadline of 1 November 2003. This Bill provides for the remaining items. Regarding the Bunkers Convention, the EU urged member states to introduce legislation and this Bill fulfils that requirement. Limits of compensation are covered in a recent Bill and sanctions are currently under discussion at EU working group level.

Senator Kenneally also raised the issue of insurance for our flag carrying vessels. Any ship carrying more than 2,000 tonnes of oil in bulk as cargo is required to have insurance or other financial security, such as the guarantee of a bank that covers liability for pollution damage under this convention. We cannot allow any such ship under the Irish flag to trade without a certificate of insurance. Ireland currently has no oil tankers under its flag.

Senator Kenneally also raised the issue of insurance for foreign flagged vessels. Under the Sea Pollution (Amendment) Act 1999 ships from convention and non-convention countries arriving at an Irish port carrying 2,000 tonnes or more of cargo oil must carry a certificate of insurance or other financial security. The master of the ship must produce this on demand to any inspector or harbour master. If a ship fails to carry a certificate on board, or the master of the ship fails to produce it, the master shall be guilty of an offence.

I thank Senators for their input and look forward to seeing the Bill through the next Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4 November 2003.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Brendan KenneallyBrendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 4November 2003.