Mr. Eamon Ryan:
I also support the Minister’s action in introducing this Bill. In my opinion, there will be general support in the House to try to have it passed by 1 November in order that we can comply with the international regulations.
It is unfortunate that the Bill is being presented at this late stage, particularly as the international deadline for implementation is only two weeks away. I regret that, in a sense, we will not have enough time to give it proper consideration. I understand that the Minister intends to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage on Thursday. I can excuse him, to a certain extent, for arriving late with his homework or for perhaps having only done it on a Sunday evening, but it is regrettable that we are not rowing together – as he stated he hoped would happen – in respect of passing the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Sea Pollution (Hazardous and Noxious Substances) (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill. There is no doubt that these Bills are related. If we are intent on addressing the issue of marine safety, it would be far more sensible to take these Bills, which, in essence, are seeking to achieve the same effect, deal with them at one sitting and allow a proper debate across a range of areas involving marine safety.
It is regrettable that we are addressing this Bill separately from the hazardous and noxious substances Bill as the issues are similar. We will now have to deal separately with the protocol to the international convention on oil pollution relating to preparedness, response and co-operation. It makes no sense that we are not debating these Bills together. One of my main criticisms of the Government parties in this regard is that they have failed to bring about this basic level of co-ordination. If they had been co-ordinated, we could have gone into detail and had a proper Second Stage debate across a range of different issues. When we deal with one after the other we will not, to my mind, give them due attention or necessary time.
In regard to the detail of the Bill, I laud the role of the EU in pushing the protocol regarding the establishment of the supplementary fund. It is a good example of where the EU, acting not only as a multi-lateral organisation within its own right but also on a global basis, has pushed the International Maritime Organisation to improve standards and set stricter limits. Taking the step beyond EU boundaries and seeking tighter international laws is something for which the officials and the EU should be applauded.
Given the number of incidents in Europe over recent years, such a move is not surprising. There have been many accidents over the years. In my 40 short years on the planet, there seems to have been a major oil spillage in Europe every five years or so, such as the Betelgeuse incident in Brittany. I am sure Deputy O’Donovan is aware of an incident in Bantry. While it was different from some of the major incidents, it was still a major oil tanker incident in our waters. There have been many incidents in European waters. Given that the EU is such a heavily industrialised area with a large number of oil tankers moving through its waters, it is not surprising that we have concerns about the issue of compensation for oil tanker spills or damage. The increase in the fund is welcome. When one looks at the level of funds and the ?120 million that was in place, clearly it would have been inadequate if we had a major incident.
The Minister said he wishes to go further and look at overall safety and later he referred to the establishment of an agency. I echo Deputy Coveney’s comments – we need more than an agency. I also have concerns about the type of regulations we are passing in terms of improving marine safety. Deputy Coveney mentioned a report during a previous debate which referred to the need for an ocean-going tug on the west coast. The report, carried out in 1998 or 1999, is a seminal document and shows the almost mathematical certainty of incidents in our waters every year given the volume of merchant marine traffic and large trawlers around our coast. We can be sure, on a mathematical statistical basis, that we will have two serious marine emergency incidents involving the merchant fleet every year. This is an approximation. On the basis of this, the report concluded investment in an ocean-going tug would be worthwhile for the State and the EU. The tug possibly could come to the rescue of boats in difficulty off the south west coast of England or the northern coasts of France or Spain.
We know from recent responses what would happen if anything came to pass with the disused American merchant navy ships which are being towed from Virginia to Hartlepool in north west England. The Minister told us that if there was an incident, we would have access to tugs from the European Continent. I wonder how long it would take a tug to get from the Thames estuary, Le Harve or Brest, or wherever the Minister has contracted it to be in readiness—–
Maritime incidents involving oil tankers can involve compensation bills of ?500 million to ?700 million. These bills are of such magnitude that the Department of Finance has to tell us why it will not invest the necessary money in an emergency towing vessel that might save us the ?500 million bill in the first place. It is not enough for the Minister to propose agencies for us to adopt international protocols. It is important that we invest in proper marine safety infrastructure if we are serious about protecting our marine environment. Such vessels could have a dual role. They could monitor activities at sea and assist the naval and fisheries protection services. It would not be as if such a vessel would sit waiting for an accident to happen.
Another recommendation in the report is that we would apply to the International Maritime Organisation for the designation of our north west coast, a particularly sensitive area, as a no-go area for certain oil tankers. I believe that request was previously turned down by the International Maritime Organisation. The Minister indicated a similar request would be made in conjunction with European states, but he did not clarify whether this is likely to be passed. The Minister told the House the MEPC is the agency dealing with it. I was attending a committee meeting while the Minister delivered his speech. However, it is unclear whether he thinks we will or will not be successful in achieving such an exclusion zone.
I encourage the Minister to seek such a zone. In addition to environmental costs, the perception of the image of Ireland abroad would be one of the greatest costs in the event of a marine accident involving an oil tanker. There is no doubt that an oil tanker disaster on the beaches of Donegal, Connemara or west Cork would be hugely costly to this country on a symbolic level as well as on an environmental level. I encourage the Minister to clarify the status of this exclusion zone proposal.
