Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 1979

Vol. 312 No. 5

Whiddy Island Disaster: Motion.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Faulkner)

I move:

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for—

1. inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:

(1) the immediate and other causes of, and the circumstances of and leading to, the explosions and fires on and in the vicinity of the ship Betelgeuse and the jetty of the terminal of Gulf Oil Terminals (Ireland) Limited at Whiddy Island, Bantry, in the County of Cork on the 8th January, 1979,

(2) the circumstances of and leading to the loss of life on and in the vicinity of the ship and jetty on the 8th January, 1979,

(3) the measures, and their adequacy, taken on and before the 8th January, 1979, on, in the vicinity of and in relation to the ship and at, in the vicinity of and in relation to the terminal to prevent, and to minimise and otherwise to deal with—

(a) fires and explosions of the kinds aforesaid, and

(b) the occurrence of circumstances of the kinds that led to the loss of life aforesaid;

and

2. making such recommendations (if any) as the Tribunal, having regard to its findings, thinks proper.

We were all, Government and people alike, extremely shocked by the appalling disaster to the French registered tanker Betelgeuse at Bantry Bay early in the morning of 8 January last when 51 people lost their lives.

We owe it to the victims of the disaster and to their relatives to make every possible effort to establish the circumstances and causes of the disaster; we also owe it to them to ascertain in the fullest possible way the lessons to be learnt from this terrible event so as to prevent such a disaster occuring again.

In addition to our obligations to the relatives of the victims and those others directly affected, we have a wider obligation to all those who go to sea in ships, be they tankers or otherwise, or who work at oil terminals. If there are lessons to be learnt from the Betelgeuse experience which contribute to making the seas and ports of the world safer, we have a duty to seek out those lessons and benefit from them.

It is for these reasons that the Government decided that the widest possible investigation into the disaster must be held. The Government determined also that the body appointed to hold the inquiry should have the highest status in law. They considered the provisions of a number of enactments which provide statutory authority for the holding of public inquiries into incidents of this kind and concluded that a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 would be most appropriate for the purpose.

An eminent Judge of the High Court, Mr. Justice Declan Costello, has agreed to hold the inquiry. He will be assisted by a number of assessors who will be chosen on the basis of high calibre, experience and expertise. The tribunal is being given very wide terms of reference. It will investigate the cause and circumstances of the disaster and the resultant loss of life as well as the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent and deal with accidents at the terminal. Furthermore, the tribunal may make such recommendations as, having regard to its findings, it may think proper. The terms of reference have been deliberately drawn up to provide the tribunal with full scope in its conduct of the inquiry.

The Government's determination to conduct the most searching and exhaustive inquiry has been evident from the outset. The Taoiseach announced on 8 January—the day of the disaster—that the fullest possible inquiry would be held and on the following day I announced that this would take the form of a public sworn inquiry. An immediate examination of existing legislative provisions was undertaken and this indicated the need to draft and enact amending legislation in order to ensure the effectiveness of the inquiry. It was in these circumstances that the Minister for Justice promoted the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill, 1979, which has since been enacted and which contains provisions which inter alia require the attendance of witnesses, the giving of evidence and the production of documents.

The most immediate task after the explosion and fire was of course to remove the remaining oil, to eliminate the risk of further pollution and to ensure against danger of further fire or explosion. This priority task was accomplished with efficiency and expedition. It was also essential to make immediate arrangements to ensure the assembly and preservation of evidence necessary for the conduct of the inquiry. The initial step in this regard was the appointment on the day following the disaster of an officer of my Department to undertake a preliminary inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

When the bow section of the vessel had been rendered safe for examination after the completion of gas inerting, the work of investigation and assembly of evidence was carried out under the close supervision of my Department. This has involved the assembly of a team of experts comprising martime technical experts from my own Department assisted by expertise from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and Irish Shipping Ltd. and augmented, as necessary, by technical experts from abroad. My aim has been to ensure that nothing which could possibly have contributed to the cause of the disaster is overlooked and that the tribunal will have the assistance of the best available expertise.

In addition, of course, representatives of the other parties with a direct interest in the hearings before the tribunal have had access to the wreck and the jetty with my consent and under my supervision. These facilities have been granted subject to appropriate safeguards and in an atmosphere of agreement and co-operation between all concerned. I have no doubt there is a real desire on the part of everybody concerned to get as close as possible to the truth of what happended to cause the disaster of 8 January. All realise that it is essential to safer operations in the future that this be done. When the examination of the bow section of the vessel was completed, that portion was towed to a selected sinking site about 100 miles WSW of Fastnet and was scuttled on 23 February. Work on the salvage of the after section is proceeding and will take some time. This is also being examined by experts to establish whether it can yield any possible evidence as to the cause of the disaster.

I am not in a position at this stage to say when the inquiry will commence but I can tell the House that Bantry has been chosen as the location.

It would clearly be inappropriate for me at this time to comment on any matter which will arise for consideration by the tribunal of inquiry and I do not propose to do so. I should not, however, let the opportunity pass without paying tribute to the herculean efforts of many people in the aftermath of the disaster.

The Garda, Army and Navy personnel have done a tremendous job. The shipowners, terminal operators, salvors and their employees have worked in very difficult and dangerous conditions to make the wreck safe and contain the risk of oil spillage. In this latter area particularly, they have been very successful having regard to the immensity of the damage to the vessel and the potential pollution hazard. The damage caused by pollution and the use of dispersants has been kept to a minimum.

Officials of Government Departments, including my own Departments of Tourism and Transport and Posts and Telegraphs, the Departments of Defence, Environment, Fisheries, and Labour, the Attorney General's Office and local authorities have undertaken their various duties with efficiency and dedication.

One of the tragic aspects of this disaster was of course the fact that there were no survivors among those aboard the vessel or present on the jetty at the time of the explosion and fire. This obviously makes the task of the tribunal particularly difficult. Neverthless, it is my sincere hope that it will be possible to establish the cause of the disaster. The amending legislation already enacted and the motion now before the House are designed to ensure that the tribunal will have all the powers necessary for the purpose and will suffer from no constrains which might hinder its work.

I have no doubt that the House fully shares the Government's objectives in this matter and will lend its full support to the motion.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is hardly necessary for me to say that we all deeply regret the tragic circumstances which have made this inquiry necessary. I agree, as the Minister stated, that we owe it to the victims of the disaster, and their relatives, to make every effort to establish the cause of the tragedy and I accept that everything possible will be done to ensure that such a disaster will not occur again. Fine Gael endorse the decision of the Government to set up the inquiry. Within a short time of the tragedy, in the course of a statement, we called for the holding of a public sworn inquiry into the causes, consequences and implications of the appalling disaster. I welcome the decision of the Government to select Bantry as the venue for the inquiry. There are many arguments in favour of having the inquiry conducted near the scene of the disaster.

News of the disaster shocked and horrified everybody. We were all amazed that such a catastrophe could occur in this era of high technology, sophisticated systems and modern techniques. They are all being applied to marine engineering, the building of ships and tankers and the loading and discharging of oil at various ports. There followed a demand for the fullest possible inquiry into the disaster. We all believed that the inquiry should ascertain all the facts and that those with evidence to give in relation to the disaster should be permitted to do so and have the right to be legally represented at the hearing.

The main purpose of the inquiry is to ascertain how the disaster occurred. We must also be prepared to ensure that whatever lessons emerge from it will be heeded and that recommendations will be implemented. It is against the sense of public shock and horror and the demand for a public inquiry that we must judge the terms of reference for the inquiry which are contained in the motion. As a result of the amending legislation enacted here recently it will be possible for the chairman of the tribunal to carry out his task in an effective manner. I accept that because the tribunal has been set up it is not appropriate for me to pre-judge any of the issues raised or preempt any of the findings of that tribunal. It is the duty of the tribunal to answer the hundreds of questions that have been posed since the disaster.

From my discussions with people in Bantry who represent various interests I learned that they are reasonably satisfied with the terms of reference outlined in the motion. I am satisfied that those terms of reference are designed to enable the fullest possible investigation to be carried out. It is important that those with evidence must be allowed to give it and have the right of legal representation. All the facts must be brought to light because the cause must be identified and responsibility pinpointed. Blame must be apportioned. The recommendations of the inquiry will have great implications nationally and internationally. They will have implications in relation to national and international maritime laws Unfortunately, the tragedy at Bantry is one of a series of serious accidents involving oil tankers in recent years. We all remember the incident of the Torrey Canyon in 1968 or 1969 when tons of oil spoiled the coast of Devon and Cornwall and a number of serious accidents occurred last year. Such disasters can mean loss of life—like Bantry—and can mean immense pollution problems causing serious environment damage, damage to the tourist industry and marine life. Fishing and tourism are very important in the Bantry Bay region. A disaster like this one, as well as the appalling loss of life, has immense economic and social implications.

I sincerely hope—and this is the desire of everybody—that from this tribunal will come forth positive, realistic and appropriate recommendations which will probably give rise to the need for new legislation, the implementation of new regulations covering the handling, docking and discharging of oil tankers and covering the security and safety measures on ships at sea and at the oil terminal. In recent years—and from what I can gather the same criticism can be made of most European countries—Minister of Transport have overlooked, or have not been as conscious of, the need to keep a careful watch on the transportation of oil. Tankers have got bigger and more sophisticated and equipment is being updated almost every year. Despite all the advantages of modern technology this poses the question whether the international regulations governing in particular the operation of oil tankers are strict enough. Yet an accident of this size has happened.

I do not want to make a long speech. I realise that the causes of the tragedy will be examined by the tribunal. However, I feel it necessary to refer to what appears to be one of the significant facts emerging from this disaster, that is, a need for greater vigilance by national Governments through their various Transport Ministers. I believe the time is ripe for the Minister for Tourism and Transport and his colleagues in the EEC Council of Transport Ministers to look at this question of oil spillage from tankers, accidents on tankers and so on.

Fine Gael fully support the measures taken by the Minister to set up this inquiry and endorse the selection of Bantry as the venue. I was taken aback when I heard the Minister say "I am not in a position at this stage to say when the inquiry will commence." Two months have elapsed since that unfortunate disaster. I accept that there was need for amending legislation under the Tribunals Act which had to be enacted by the Oireachtas. However, I am not a little perturbed that at this stage the Minister is unable to give the House some idea of the possible date for the commencement of the inquiry. I urge that every step be taken to get this inquiry under way as quickly as possible.

Mr. Corish

It is regrettable that there should be a need for such an inquiry. Some good for the future might come out of the lawful disaster which occurred on 8 January on Whiddy Island. Of course, that will not be any consolation to the relatives of the unfortunate people who died there. We have no objection to the terms of reference announced by the Minister. We applaud him for securing Mr. Justice Declan Costello to hold the inquiry, an excellent man who will do a conscientious job. There has been a delay in bringing this motion before the Dáil and appointing Justice Costello to conduct the inquiry. It has taken two months to have the terms of reference debated in this House. We appear to be only now getting down to formally instituting the inquiry. I join with Deputy O'Donnell in pressing the Minister to give the approximate date on which the inquiry will begin. I acknowledge that a preliminary investigation into the cause of the disaster was carried out very quickly, but that does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in tabling the motion and having it debated here. While the terms of reference appear to be adequate, questions of resources and staff to be made available to the members of the tribunal remain to be settled.

The Minister said many experts, or people deemed to be experts, from his and other Departments would be joined by technical experts from abroad. I cannot make any comment about these people because I do not know who they are or what their qualifications are. All we can do is trust that the Minister got the best experts available, whether from this country or abroad. I am sure there must be experts in this field who would be able to assist at the inquiry. It is essential that the highest expertise be available to enable the members of the tribunal to come to grips with the cause of the problem and make appropriate recommendations, which I trust the Minister will act upon as quickly as possible. It is appropriate that the Minister designated Bantry to be the venue for this inquiry. I am sure he will have the support of the majority of the Members of this House in making that selection.

Apart from the particulars involved in the inquiry, there is a wider issue. Like Deputy O'Donnell I do not want to prejudge or anticipate the findings or recommendations, but it appeared for a considerable time after the disaster on 8 January that Gulf Oil were calling the shots in relation to post-disaster activities on Whiddy Island. This disaster appears to point to the fact that Government control over the operation of the company in the area is very much needed. I trust that aspect will be considered by the tribunal. We recall that Gulf Oil were brought to Whiddy Island a few years ago by a Fianna Fáil Government and it appears there were not sufficient safeguards in relation to public scrutiny——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will have to keep away from anything which might impinge in the slightest on the investigation.

Mr. Corish

I hope the tribunal will make recommendations as to the appropriate form of public scrutiny and control which should exist in relation to this company and the two other oil terminals, bearing in mind the national interest. If the tribunal feel they cannot make such recommendations, it is incumbent on the Government to do so. How and by whom this should be done is a matter for the consideration of the Minister.

We must also remember that there was an oil spillage in Bantry in 1974. Fortunately there was no loss of life. After that spillage the Government issued a severe warning to Gulf Oil to improve their precautionary measures. I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us whether, in fact, these measures were improved. He might also tell us whether Gulf Oil monitor standards of safety of vessels arriving at the terminal.

In considering this tribunal we must bear in mind the other sizeable oil installations at Whitegate and Dublin. The consequences of a disaster of the magnitude of that which accurred at Whiddy would be much worse in either of these two places. To avoid the danger of such a disaster, should there not be a similar investigation into Whitegate and Dublin? The installations at these two places are not included among the subjects being discussed by the tribunal, but the Minister should comment on the precautions and monitoring systems at Whitegate and Dublin. The terms of the motion are wide enough to include all the matters which Deputies would wish to be considered by the tribunal.

We must also consider what has happended at Whiddy since the explosions. As Deputy O'Donnell said, pollution has affected the lovely coastline of west Cork and has had an effect on the fishing industry. Whilst I know the area fairly well, I am not a native of it. It appears that the tourist industry may be affected if the pollution is not dealt with. The plight of the fisherman is such that, according to their spokesman, they have lost a considerable amount of money. The tribunal may not take that into consideration because they are concerned only with the cause of the explosions and fire. However, the problems of the fisherman should be considered by the Minister. Perhaps it is a matter between the fishermen and Gulf Oil, but the Minister should take an interest in the fishing and tourist industries. The big question concerns the payment of compensation.

It is very difficult to know which member of the Government has the responsibility for dealing with pollution. It appears that the Minister for the Environment has responsibility for pollution which reaches the coastline, while the Minister for Tourism and Transport has responsibility for pollution at sea. I am informed that Gulf Oil have control of the oil tankers at the Whiddy terminal. There should be some body to co-ordinate activities in preventing or dealing with pollution. My party approve the terms of reference of the tribunal and are satisfied that Bantry is the best venue. We hope that the work of the tribunal will commence as quickly as possible and that they will speedily produce a report. I would also hope that they would consider control by the Government or some central authority over the oil terminals at Whitegate and Dublin.

Mr. J. Walsh

I should like to compliment the Minister on his speech. In the relatively short time since 8 January a preliminary inquiry has taken place and it was necessary to enact amending legislation in the Dáil. Any fair-minded person would have to agree that much progress has been made since the disaster.

I am glad the tribunal will investigate not only the cause and circumstances of the disaster but also the measures taken subsequently and whether they were adequate. It is important that there is to be a public sworn inquiry so that everyone will be satisfied that nothing will be overlooked which may have contributed to the cause of the disaster. I am glad that the tribunal will have at their disposal expertise from at home and abroad. Such a disaster must not occur again. The findings of the tribunal will be of benefit not only in this country but internationally. I am satisfied with the decision to hold the inquiry at Bantry.

Mr. O'Keeffe

In common with my colleagues I wish to extend sympathy to the bereaved and to all those who have suffered loss because of this tragedy. I welcome the selection of Bantry as the site for the hearings. However, in studying the terms of reference and the Minister's speech I am worried that the scope of the inquiry may not be sufficiently wide. I would point out that the people of Bantry and the surrounding areas are apprehensive lest there remains the possibility of a repetition. They want to be assured that every step will be taken to investigate the cause of the explosions and any factors which might lead to a similar tragedy in the future. I am anxious that their minds be put at rest in regard to the future.

Prevention is better than cure and therefore all will agree that the widest possible inquiry is necessary. I am afraid the wording of the motion may not ensure this fully. Paragraph (3) states:

the measures, and their adequacy, taken on and before the 8th January 1979, on, in the vicinity of and in relation to the ship and at, in the vicinity of and in relation to the terminal to prevent, and to minimise and otherwise to deal with——

Obviously "the ship" is the Betelgeuse, but I suggest the terms of reference should permit an investigation of the circumstances pertaining to any ship coming to this terminal. The Minister made it clear that we owe it to those who suffered loss to ascertain in the fullest possible way the causes of the tragedy and to discover the lessons to be learned so as to prevent such a disaster recurring.

My anxiety is whether there is a possibility that factors exist other than those which caused the 8 January explosion which might lead to similar type explosions. Are there other factors involved, for instance in the operating of the terminal, which could lead to similar explosions? I accept that the main function of the tribunal must be to try to ascertain as exactly as possible what happened on the night in question, but could the inquiry be broadened to have a more complete investigation, to try to ascertain are there any other factors which in the future might lead to that type of tragedy?

For instance, there is the question of whether the tribunal, in the context of the motion, can examine the position in regard to escape routes from the jetty, the evacuation of Whiddy Island in the event of further explosions and so forth. As the purpose of the inquiry will be also to ensure that such explosions will not occur again and that all safety measures will be taken in the future, surely recommendations should be made in regard to such safety measures. The modus operandi of the tribunal arises. I suggest that the tribunal chairman should be accessible to all interested parties prior to the formal sittings so that applications could be made for the production of documents and the submission of factual information.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is of the opinion that the Deputy is getting into matters that would be appropriate to to the tribunal itself. We cannot do that on a motion like this.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I appreciate that, but without going into the question of the evidence that will be given, I suggest that the manner in which the tribunal will operate is proper for discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. What we are dealing with is the establishment of a tribunal and its terms of reference. The tribunal itself will have power to deal with the matters to which the Deputy is now referring.

Mr. O'Keeffe

What I am raising with the Minister is the extent of these powers and whether in the context of the motion the tribunal will have power to order the production of planning permission documents, the operations manual of the terminal and so on prior to the hearings and make them available to interested parties. I will not develop the point other than to put it on the record of the House that it is important that such documents would be available to interested parties on application to the tribunal to enable them properly to present their cases and submissions to the tribunal.

Another matter concerns witnesses. Will every possible effort be made to procure every witness of the happenings of 8 January and other matters in relation to the terms of reference? Will the tribunal have sufficient resources to see that this is done?

The Minister referred to the immediate task after the explosion, the removal of oil and the elimination of the risk of further pollution. He said that this priority task had been accomplished efficiently and with expedition and that the pollution had been cleared up totally. I am now informing the Minister that further major pollution occurred in the bay as late as last Saturday and spread as far as Castletownbere.

I have other worries arising from discussions with Bantry people. One is whether the tribunal will have power to inquire into the losses which occurred as a result of the explosions. Should the terms of reference not be wider to permit the tribunal to have such powers? The Minister has said this will not be part of the tribunal's functions. Obviously the tribunal will be inquiring into the circumstances leading to loss of life, and I suggest there will be other matters in this regard which the tribunal could investigate. We all know the loss the community suffered as a result of this tragedy, the loss from the tourism and fishing industries, and questions naturally arise in relation to compensation, reparation and so forth. Will this tribunal have any function in these matters? If not, will the Minister consider whether the terms of reference should be broadened to give it such a function?

The other aspect at which the tribunal should be looking is the broader context of the international agreements regulating the transport of oil and the need in this country for the ratification of certain of these agreements. Should the tribunal, as part of its terms of reference, have power to make recommendations in regard to further legislation in this country? Should it have powers to examine the situation of the harbour board in Bantry and the powers or lack of such powers of that board?

I raise these points because of my desire to ensure that this tribunal will have the widest possible powers so that the maximum benefit to the community can result from the investigation which it will conduct. Finally, I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the Minister was not in a position to say when the inquiry would commence. It is important to get the work of the tribunal under way at once, and I ask the Minister to make arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Moore

I speak on the Bill to indicate the sympathy of everyone of us with the relatives of the many who died on Whiddy. The disaster hit the whole country, and we were very conscious that these men were serving us by bringing oil into the country. Every day of the year we went on in our selfish way, running cars and having our houses heated on the products of oil, and not thinking of the men who work all the time at this dangerous task.

I congratulate the Minister on the way he has handled this matter from the moment the bad news came through. People have complained about the delay. But it is not quite two months since the disaster occurred and the Minister is to be complimented on the way he has handled this at every step. He could have left it until we found out at the inquiry the shortcomings of legislation in this regard. He has acted in the best possible way by perfecting and extending the legislation, by giving the tribunal more powers and by selecting Mr. Justice Costello as chairman of the tribunal. We have great faith in Mr. Costello's efficiency and we know he will do a good job as head of the tribunal.

The nation has now recovered somewhat from the shock of the disaster, and the Minister has acted in the best possible way. The inquiry will be held in Bantry very soon and we hope that from it we will find out exactly what happened. It has been said that accidents do not just happen, and somebody caused this frightful accident. The task before us is to find out what caused it, not in any spirit of vengence but so that we can take measures to prevent a recurrence. I do not say that good may come out of the Whiddy tragedy, but because of it we may learn something. There will be repercussions far from Whiddy, and countries in the business of exporting or importing oil will look forward to the findings of this tribunal so that they can take measures to prevent such a thing happening in future. Men of different nationalities were working at the scene of this disaster. The poet John Donne said: "Never ask to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." It tolled for Irishmen and Frenchmen on that day. There is an onus on the nations of the world who are in the oil business to pool their resources of experience and to ensure that we do not become careless in handling oil.

It is expected that the tribunal will hear a great amount of evidence which will be used by countries all over the world. Preservations speak of prevention of destruction of our coastline. No doubt the coastline suffered because of this disaster, but that is a secondary matter. That type of damage can be repaired, thanks to advancement in science. Unfortunately, we cannot bring back the 51 people who died, but we can ensure that the relatives of the victims will be compensated as far as possible.

I have some fears. Multinational oil companies have been very tough indeed, and they are powerful. I must not anticipate what will happen at sittings of the tribunal, but the Irish representatives on it will have to be the very best that we can get, people who will sift meticulously every item of evidence. We must not allow financial considerations to inhibit in any way the probing by the tribunal into the cause of the accident. Nobody in this House or anywhere else would wish this to be merely a face-saving exercise or, to use the popular phrase, cosmetic treatment. We are going to hold the inquiry and we will make sure that it is effective.

In this tribunal the Minister is giving us an instrument which can be effective, provided it has the necessary back-up. The Bill setting up the tribunal provides for penalties, which are spelled out by the Minister, to be imposed on people who will not co-operate in various ways. As I have said, we are not going into this with a sense of vengence. We are looking for the cause of this terrible accident. From the result of the inquiry we will draft the necessary legislation or institute precautions to ensure that never again will this happen. We may well have a repetition of such a disaster; we cannot say we will not, but we will try to get the tribunal to ensure that it will not recur. We are all very conscious of the dangers which oil may bring about, leakage and so forth. We sometimes hear of tankers leaking off the coasts of other countries and we are all aware that if a tanker leaks off the coast of the UK or France we will be affected by it. We hope that this tribunal will lead to an international recognition of the need to curb the possible damage caused by oil leakage. We only own some very small tankers so it is unlikely that a disaster like the Whiddy Island one will be caused by our fleet.

There could be a disaster in one of our larger ports where large quantities of oil are stored. While the tribunal is examining the cause of the disaster at Whiddy Island it should examine what steps can be taken to ensure safety in the storage of oil. We all feel we have a duty to the people who died in this disaster and their relatives to ensure that such a disaster will not happen again. It is important to make sure that the tribunal is an instrument which will prevent a recurrence of this disaster and will put the blame where it rightly belongs.

I do not know if we will be able to find the real cause of the disaster. I believe this tribunal which the Minister is setting up will be as efficient as it possibly can be. I congratulate the Minister on the way he has handled this matter. There is a temptation to rush into things to show the public what we are doing. It might gain some popular plaudits but it would not be the right thing to do in this case. This is such a serious matter that it is necessary to consider every step in setting up the tribunal. I believe that in the future the methods adopted by the Minister will be taken as a model on how to set up an inquiry into a very serious disaster. I want again to extend sympathy to the relatives of those who died and to state our determination to find the cause of the accident at Whiddy so that we can prevent a recurrence. It is now up to the people who form the tribunal to make sure that it is used to the fullest extent possible in searching out the cause of the disaster.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

When we discussed the Tribunals of Inquiry (Amendment) Bill I had an opportunity to express my sympathy with the relatives of the Bantry disaster victims, Irish and French, and also with Gulf Oil Corporation and the owners of the French tanker. I am very pleased that the Minister has acceded to the unanimous request of the Deputies who spoke on that Bill to have the inquiry held in Bantry. There will be general welcome that it is now to be held there. Our debate here today is to make sure that the terms of the inquiry are such that the tribunal will be an all-embracing one. We know that it has been set up specifically to inquiry into a particular matter. It is reasonable to assume that the eyes of the world will be on Bantry when the inquiry is being held and that many experts from here and abroad will be looking forward to the recommendations of the tribunal chairman. I hope when the chairman makes the findings available that the Government will not delay in publishing them.

Are the terms set down in this motion quite adequate? A layman reading through the Minister's brief would come to the conclusion that they are and that the chairman of the tribunal is being given adequate powers to inquire into all aspects of this disaster. Is it necessary to put any section or subsection into the terms of reference? Some person during the course of the inquiry might be indicted. That is a reasonable assumption. If that should happen will that person be entitled to have legal representation during the remainder of the inquiry? If he is entitled to have legal representation will he be entitled to have that at public expense? We know that it will be impossible for some people around the Bantry area to meet the legal costs of representation at an inquiry which is likely to last over a long period. The Minister's reply may possibly be that such matters will be at the direction of the tribunal chairman. Is it necessary for the House to add anything to the clauses set out in the motion we are discussing?

During the discussion on the Inquiry Bill I raised the question of evidence by non-nationals. If people from outside Ireland are asked to give evidence, for example, Gulf Oil, or the owners of the tanker, does the jurisdiction of the chairman of the tribunal extend to ensuring that such people attend? I doubt if this is so unless special arrangements are made with the Governments of those people. Was such a situation envisaged by the Minister or his advisers when drawing up this motion? If it did arise and if somebody refused to attend, have we any compelling authority to ensure their attendance? I should like the Minister to state in his reply whether, in such an eventuality, he would contact the Governments of the people concerned to ensure their attendance.

Two months have now passed since the disaster occured. We must take into account matters directly arising from the disaster which will not be within the terms of reference of the tribunal. It is not the job of the tribunal to ascertain the extent of the damage caused by the disaster to tourism and to fishing. Many people have played a prominent part in helping the relatives of the victims, particularly relatives of the French victims, and facilitating them in every way. Nothing more could have been done than what was done by the people of Bantry and the surrounding districts. The Minister mentioned this and also the help given by officials of Government Departments, the Attorney General's Office, local authorities, the Garda, fire brigade and all the local associations.

The Cork County Council have more than 100 men employed in trying to clear up Bantry Bay. It is a difficult task as the oil spillage extended for miles beyond Whiddy. The fishermen in the area are not satisfied with the way the Minister for Fisheries is handling his side of the question. I wish to avail of this opportunity to make that statement publicly. We were told by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry that the damage caused by pollution to Bantry Bay was minimal. If that is so, why is it necessary to engage more than 100 men in trying to clear up the bay?

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

I realise that but——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not even the same Department.

Mr. M. P. Murphy

I know that. We should have another tribunal of a minor nature to inquire into this question. Bantry Bay should be closed to fishing having regard to the manner in which it is affected.

The contributions made here today should not try to anticipate what happened or what caused the disaster. That is a major question. There have been rumours and counter-rumours but it is hoped that the findings of the tribunal will dispel all of these and that we will get a clear picture of what happened on that unfortunate night in Bantry Bay. The Minister for Tourism has done everything one would expect a person in his office to do. He has been to Bantry and the Government have brought in a measure to establish an inquiry into the disaster. The statements he has made are quite acceptable. While the Minister for Tourism has done all this, the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry is sadly lacking in his duties as far as his side of the question is concerned. I accept that it is difficult for the Minister for Tourism to give to the House the starting date for the inquiry. Many preliminary matters must be dealt with but I am sure that once that work is completed, there will be no undue delay and the inquiry will get under way smoothly and efficiently.

While the disaster was due to the terminal being at Bantry Bay, as one who lives not too far from Bantry I want to say that the Gulf Oil Corporation were welcomed in Bantry. Despite the disaster, the majority of people in Bantry and in west Cork sympathise with Gulf and are anxious for them to continue their operations. Those who say that Gulf should move their operations from Bantry are in the minority.

Let us hope that the work of the tribunal will start soon and that the terms laid down in the motion will be adequate for the chairman and his advisers. I hope that the report of the tribunal will be able to throw some light on the cause of the disaster and that it will be of help to us, to other Governments and to those who work in oil terminals and on tankers. There is no doubt that many people are looking forward to the results of the inquiry, which is of world-wide importance. I have no doubt that the inquiry will be efficiently conducted.

Mr. P. Barry

I welcome the terms of reference laid down by the Minister. As a layman, I think they are sufficiently wide to cover all aspects of the tragic disaster which occurred in January last. I am not sure of the point raised by Deputy O'Keeffe and perhaps the Minister might comment on it. The Minister may think that the point needs amending if the inquiry is to make recommendations in regard to future operations at the terminal.

The disaster was tragic for everybody involved in it. The Government deserve sympathy for having to handle a disaster of this magnitude in a remote part of the country. It was also a disaster for Gulf, for the shipowners and particularly for the relatives of those who lost their lives. The primary task of the inquiry is to discover the cause of the accident—to establish whether it was a mechanical fault or human error that caused the loss of 51 lives.

I am glad that the Government decided to appoint Mr. Justice Costello to chair the tribunal. It may not be realised that Mr. Justice Costello has experience in maritime matters through his attendance at the Law of the Sea Conferences in Caracas, in Rome and in Geneva. His experience in this area probably resulted in his being chosen to chair the inquiry. He will be assisted by a number of assessors who will be chosen on the basis of their high calibre, experience and expertise. I do not know whether the assessors will be from the Minister's Department or whether they will be from outside the country. I am sure that nobody would quibble if assessors were brought in from anywhere in the world as long as they were people of high calibre, experience and expertise.

Unlike other speakers, I am not unduly concerned with the delay in establishing the tribunal. We are naturally impatient to discover the cause of the accident in order to prevent further accidents of a similar nature. The evidence brought before the tribunal should be as detailed and as comprehensive as possible. In that regard the action of the Minister's Department and of many other people should be commended. I should like to pay tribute to the gardaí, the county council workers and many others who helped at the time of the disaster. The fact that there were no survivors makes the task of the tribunal difficult. Therefore, it is important that the officials of the Department, the shipowners and the operators at the terminal should finecomb every shred of evidence to ensure that it is as complete as possible before being presented to the tribunal. In that regard, the Minister said, "When the bow section of the vessel had been rendered safe for examination after the completion of gas interting, the work of investigation and assembly of evidence was carried out under the close supervision of my Department."

I was on the other side of the world at the time of the disaster. It was recognised as a disaster of such immense proportions that it made front page news in a paper published 12,000 miles away. Even that distance away it was regarded as an enormous disaster. I was in Bantry two days later and I was glad to discover that the machinery in the Minister's Department had been set in motion immediately and that the supervision by the Department since then has been of a nature that has ensured co-operation from all concerned. I am glad to be able to pay tribute to the Minister for that.

The Minister said:

I have no doubt there is a real desire on the part of everybody concerned to get as close as possible to the truth of what happened to cause the disaster of 8 January.

I can accept that. There may be a temptation on the part of some people, without waiting for the tribunal to complete its investigations, to blame either the shipowners or the owners of the oil. This should be resisted for a number of reasons. It should be resisted because a tribunal is being set up to investigate the cause of the disaster and until it presents its findings we will not be able to assess exactly who is to blame—that is, if it can ever be assessed. That is also a possibility.

Deputy Moore made the point that multinationals with their clout, influence and wealth could be accused of attempting to cover up in this regard. It would be unwise for anybody inside or outside this House wildly to accuse the Gulf Oil Corporation, because they are a multinational, of attempting a cover-up. I believe it is as much in their interests and that they are as concerned to see that the truth is established.

As a result of this inquiry I hope we will establish matters to our own satisfaction, that the internal safety standards are sufficient to eliminate the possibility of a disaster in the future and that they are as detailed and as strictly enforced as possible. I hope also that there will be some international implications in that other countries and international institutions will take some of the recommendations if they are made or accept on the basis of evidence, even without recommendations being made, the fact that the carriage of oil can be made safer so that the possibility of a similar disaster elsewhere may be avoided.

Looking at the terms of reference from a layman's point of view, I am satisfied that they are as wide as possible and that the inquiry will be as open and comprehensive as possible. I hope that the findings will be heeded not just in this country but by everyone who has responsibility for ensuring the safety of the carriage of oil at sea in future.

Mr. Quinn

Much has been said on this motion and I do not want to bore the House by going over ground that has been covered already. Unfortunately I was not able to be present for all the contributions. At the outset I should like to put briefly but formally on the record of the House my sympathy with the relatives of the people who unfortunately lost their lives in this disaster.

It is now nearly two months since this disaster took place. Today we are in a position in this House when all we know of the inquiry are the terms of reference, the person who will head the inquiry, Mr. Justice Costello, and the venue which is Bantry. I suppose we should be grateful for that amount of information. I am not unaware that the Minister has had considerable difficulty in handling this matter and it would be unfair for anyone in this House not to recognise that fact.

With other Deputies I was anxious that the details of the inquiry, the location and the terms of reference would be published as soon as possible because once those details were known the actual holding of the inquiry and the date could take second place. At least people would be aware that a responsible, democratic Government were responding to an unfortunate disaster, that a responsible, democratic Government with an experienced senior Minister were moving quickly, knowing what they were doing and in control of the situation. I regret that at times unfortunately that impression was not conveyed to the public at large. I regret that today we are still missing certain items of information that would remove such a charge that I make reluctantly.

First, I shall turn to the terms of reference with which basically I am in full agreement. However, there is one addition—it could be argued as being a marginal addition—but it is a matter of concern to many in the area and it is one that could be inserted as (c) of paragraph (3). It deals with pollution measures. Some reference to such measures before 8 January should be considered. The inquiry should have the right to look at whatever anti-pollution measures were taken in so far as they may relate to operations on the jetty and on Whiddy Island.

My colleague, Deputy Murphy, and others have voiced the concern of people in the area with regard to the fishing industry. In view of the fact that the tourist industry is directly involved and the Minister present is correctly titled Minister for Tourism first and secondly Minister for Transport, and that pollution is something that affects our tourist industry, to say the least it is strange that some reference to pollution is not included in this motion. I should like to hear the Minister indicate that such anti-pollution measures that would normally operate on the jetty and related facilities would fall within the competence of the terms of reference and, therefore, would be capable of being discussed and examined at the inquiry.

The second point I wish to make relates to the assessors. We know that the chairperson will be Mr. Justice Costello, a person who is genuinely respected by all sides of this House and whose authority is well established. However, his role will be that of chairing the meetings and heading the tribunal and his experience will be simply of a legal nature. For an inquiry to produce the kind of results that will be of benefit to future generations of Irish people, the right questions must be asked. According to the information the Minister gave in his opening speech, we do not know who the rest of these assessors will be, other than that they will be of the highest calibre and quality. I would take it, from the fact that the Minister has not yet announced the names of such personnel, that they have not been finally selected. If that is the case, I would like the Minister to indicate to the House now, two months after the disaster, why the final selection has not yet been made.

Obviously the date of the commencement of the inquiry hinges on a number of other factors not least of which will be the finalising of the selection of the members of the inquiry board. The Minister in his speech said in reference to Bantry that he could tell the House that Bantry had been chosen as the location. I am pleased that Bantry is to be the venue. From the outset I supported Bantry as the proper venue for such an inquiry. In view of the absolute necessity for the media to have full access to the inquiry and for the public at large to have up-to-date information, will the Minister who also has responsibility for telecommunications, tell us if it is proposed to install an automatic exchange in Bantry? Six times the number of French people were killed in this disaster as the number of Irish people. What facilities will be made available to ensure rapid communications from Bantry Bay to the rest of Ireland and to the world? Will telex facilities be installed to complement an automatic telephone exchange? It was up to the Minister to give this information in the introduction of this resolution. On numerous occasions we on this side of the House were told that we would have a full opportunity to discuss all these matters when the terms of the inquiry were brought by way of resolution to this House. It is therefore appropriate in speaking to the resolution to raise these questions, since the Minister saw fit to announce officially for the first time that Bantry is to be the venue. The delay in making that decision was presumably because of the need to assess the resources needed for such an inquiry. Consequently, will the Minister tell me the outcome of the assessment and say what specific proposals there are for the improvement of communications between Bantry and the rest of the country? The Minister said in the last part of the terms of reference:

. . . . may make such recommendations as, having regard to its findings, it may think proper.

In this aspect of the terms of reference lies a much bigger issue than the Minister is aware of or is prepared to bring forward to the House. This inquiry should not be a witchhunt; it will not bring back the dead and it will do little to comfort those who have lost relatives. If it is simply seen as that it will serve no useful purpose. We should be capable of learning from our mistakes. All reasonable people will agree that that is the benefit which should derive from this inquiry. The inquiry will cost a considerable sum of money, if the cost of similar type inquiries are to be taken as normal, plus the real cost of locating the inquiry in Bantry which will add to the cost rather than reduce it. I presume that the assessors and the Chairperson, Mr. Justice Costello, and whatever secretarial staff they have will have the job of drafting and publishing recommendations. Is the Minister satisfied that the personnel he has yet to select or to publicly announce, will have the capacity and the resources to make specific recommendations which will above all else enable us to learn from the mistakes and the disaster in Whiddy. That question obviously relates to who the assessors will be. Will they be officials from the Department or will they be, as the Minister indicated in his speech, experts, drawn from Irish Shipping and the IIRS?

It is inevitable that any recommendations of a positive nature involving preventative measures for marine safety either on land or at sea or in relation to oil installations, will involve legislation. Has the Minister the resources and the capacity to take the recommendations that may come from the inquiry and convert them without undue delay into domestic legislation? My reason for asking that is that when the Minister of State, Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick, has on previous occasions been asked about the Government's intention to introduce domestic legislation to ratify two international marine convention pieces of legislation, the MARPOL Convention and the SOLAS Convention, we were given to understand that there were certain difficulties and delays in that area. I can fully appreciate that the Minister cannot accept responsibility for the unfortunate neglect of our marine resources by numerous Governments, but in view of the existing backlog of required legislation and the probability that recommendations for domestic legislation will emanate from this inquiry would the Minister indicate what steps he is taking to increase his resources in the marine section of the Department of Tourism and Transport so that there will not be an undue delay in the implementation of the recommendations of the tribunal?

While I have questions to ask and criticisms to make of the speed with which the response was made, I say formally that the Labour Party certainly welcome the publication of these terms of reference and will support the resolution in the Dáil and would wish by way of question to offer constructive support to the Minister in this regard. If there are any matters slowing up this process which requires the consent of the Dáil in order to speed them up, I publicly ask the Minister to come forward and seek our support which I can assure him will be forthcoming.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion. Some weeks ago when we debated the Bill to set up the tribunal of inquiry, my contribution was curtailed by the Chair who repeatedly told me that I was out of order but that I would have every opportunity to discuss the specific points I had raised when this motion was being discussed. I hope that will be the case.

In the Minister's speech we are told that the tribunal is being set up to establish the reasons and the circumstances for the disaster in the hope that the same will not happen again. Of course accidents will happen no matter how vigilant people are, whether on the road or at sea. There is always an element of human error. We cannot safely forecast or ensure that such an occurrence, a lesser occurrence or a far greater catastrophe will not take place again in the future. Did we need to be warned? Did we need to have a disaster such as this happen before we realised that our vigilance is not what it should be? We have had a whole series of similar-type accidents or disasters—one could say—on the west coast of Europe. Initially we had the Torrey Canyan disaster off Land's End, followed last year by the Amoco Cadiz off the Brittany coast which did an enormous amount of damage. More recently we had the Cristos Bitas which got into trouble off the Welsh coast and for some peculiar reason ended up off the Irish coast and which eventually, to the anger of our fishermen, was towed into the Atlantic off the coast of Ireland and sunk.

This latest disaster gives rise to many questions. I hope the tribunal will deal with all the allegations and suspicions that have arisen in the past two months. Have we, as in so many other spheres, neglected the standard of safety in the interests of economic gain? This is a very common reason for accidents or disasters—that people who should be spending money on safety precautions skimp and the end result is an occasional disaster. I presume that the tribunal will not only establish the reason for the disaster but will also apportion the blame and I should like the Minister to tell us if that is the case so that people who have suffered and the families of those who died and other interests in the general area who have suffered losses can be compensated.

At Question Time some weeks ago I got an entirely unsatisfactory answer from the Minister for Fisheries in regard to the livelihood of fishermen who have been affected since 8 January. I did not get an answer when I spoke on the Bill which was brought in to set up this tribunal when I asked about some allegations which were made in The Irish Skipper which, if true, could have very serious consequences for the people in the Bantry Bay area. I hope this is brought to the notice of the tribunal. The question I asked then and to which I got no answer is the same as the one I ask today. Is it true that the Irish Government have not ratified the International Convention on Civil Liberty for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969? We are told in this article that if we had signed that convention we could claim against shipowners in our courts. When the shipowners are found negligent and we have not signed the convention it is most likely that we cannot claim. If that is correct it puts our fishermen and anybody else affected by the damage caused in a very difficult position. If this is the case I should like to know what the Government are doing to fill the void that will thus be created.

We are also told in that article that there is an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage which Ireland could have joined in 1971 or any time since. That seems the obvious place for people to make their claims. Apparently, we have not joined that fund. The allegation is made that we did not join it because the oil companies do not like it—they have to pay levies to it. I should like an answer to those allegations, that many people who should be entitled to compensation may not be because of the negligence of successive Governments in that regard.

I was in Bantry four weeks ago, four weeks precisely since the disaster. I was inundated with requests from local fishing interests to ask the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to ensure that the harbour was closed so that they could have a basis for claiming compensation as at that time and for the four weeks since the disaster they had not been able to earn a shilling. As late as yesterday I read in the Cork Examiner that fishermen in the Bantry Bay area are destitute because it is impossible to fish and any consignments of shell fish that were caught in the outer regions of the harbour were rejected on the British and French markets. What provision has been made to see that these people are adequately compensated because at present the majority of them are living on the breadline? Nobody seems willing to admit responsibility, which I imagine in big business is the normal procedure, until the court, or in this case the tribunal, apportions blame.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is of opinion that the Deputy is now getting into matters that are for investigation by the tribunal which it is proposed to establish. We cannot do that; it is completely out of order. I accept it is a rather delicate matter but if we get into that field we are in trouble. We are doing something which we are establishing the tribunal to do. We cannot carry out the investigation.

Mr. Deasy

I am not endeavouring to carry out the investigation or to apportion blame. I have stated that it is the tribunal's job to apportion blame. I pointed out to the Ceann Comhairle when I began my speech that some weeks ago when speaking on the Bill to set up the tribunal I was told I would be able to discuss this matter on the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Discuss the terms of reference and matters dealing with them, nothing else.

Mr. Deasy

I think I am confining myself to the terms of reference and to the Minister's statement today. Surely some provision should be made in the interim for people who have suffered grievous loss. Could the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do until the blame has been apportioned by the tribunal? As the Chair rightly said it is not for us here to apportion blame but I want people to be looked after until such time as the findings are issued and until compensation is paid. I hope it can be paid in view of the allegations made in this month's edition of The Irish Skipper.

The Minister said:

The most immediate task after the explosion and fire was of course to remove the remaining oil, to eliminate the risk of further pollution and to ensure against danger of further fire or explosion.

We all accept that is and should be a primary consideration.

The Minister went on to say:

This priority task was accomplished with efficiency and expedition.

I should like to contradict the Minister on that. My evidence at first hand—as I stated I visited the Bantry Bay area and toured it by boat on 5 February—was that pollution was widespread and that, in the inner bay area, no attempt had been made to clear it up. The most scenic part of Ireland, Glengariff Bay, which includes Garnish Island, was seriously polluted at that time and the local people were extremely unhappy that no effort—not even a minimum effort—had been made to clear up the extensive pollution which existed. The Minister's statement is quite incorrect in that respect.

My latest evidence is that the pollution is continuing. Last Saturday, 3 March, there was a fairly substantial oil spillage from the remaining sector of the tanker which is submerged near the demolished jetty. We all know the bow was towed out to sea and scuttled 100 miles south-west of Fastnet Rock. The stern section, however, still remains and obviously contains quantities of oil, to what extent I do not know, which are still seeping out and causing pollution. The tourist season is now imminent and I trust the Minister will see to it that all necessary work will be done immediately to clear up this pollution.

In his reply to this debate I should like the Minister to tell us the latest position with regard to the extensive pollution in Glengariff Bay and Garnish Island. The Minister was very unfair to the local people in not ordering the closure of the harbour to fishing two months ago. Because there was no closure, fishermen could not justify claims for compensation. In 1974, after a lesser spill of oil, the harbour was immediately closed and claims by fishermen for compensation were allowed on a very sound legal basis, the closure of the harbour.

Last autumn there was a disease called red tide or brown tide which endangered fish life in the outer regions of this harbour. The whole harbour area was closed and fishermen had to be compensated. Now that a greater catastrophe has occurred, not only in terms of losses of life but also losses of livelihood, nothing has been done as regards compensation. The Minister should regularise that unsatisfactory position.

As I said at the outset, this inquiry is being held to establish the cause of this disaster and to ensure, if possible, that such a disaster cannot happen again. For several years we have had the means at our disposal to provide the necessary safeguards. I was a member of the Seanad three or fours years ago when the then Minister for Transport and Power introduced a Bill to set up a Bantry Bay Harbour Board which would regulate shipping in the bay. That Bill was passed but, unfortunately, the Government have not seen fit to give any financial aid to that board, thereby rendering them totally ineffective. I am told in no other harbour in the world would shipping of such intensity, such size and such potential danger be allowed to use the harbour without being supervised by a harbour board.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, the Deputy is getting into matters which are appropriate to the investigation, very much so.

Mr. Deasy

I am not dealing specifically with anything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is impossible to deal with what is before us without being specific. No matter what is said in a general way, it must be specific to this motion. I would ask the Deputy not to deal with those matters.

Mr. Deasy

I feel I am being extremely general and extremely objective. In the Minister's statement we are told that the inquiry is being held to establish the circumstances and causes of the disaster.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but the Deputy is going into matters which could be taken as matters which are appropriate to the inquiry; the safety of ships, the way ships use the harbour, the safety of the harbour, and so on. All those are matters for the investigation. We must keep reasonably near to the motion.

Mr. Deasy

I appreciate your point, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In fairness to them, other Deputies did.

Mr. Deasy

May be they do not know as much as I do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is an unusual sort of motion. We are thankful for that. It is not the sort of motion that comes before the House very often but, when it does, we have to keep strictly to its terms and not get into conflict with what will come from the tribunal later on.

Mr. Deasy

I am not endeavouring in any way to get into any conflict. I am referring to the terms of reference, one of which is to establish the circumstances and causes of the disaster. I am saying we have been negligent in not setting up——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a matter for the tribunal to decided who has been negligent. The Deputy cannot continue on those lines. If there was negligence, it is a matter for the tribunal to decided in its investigations.

Mr. Deasy

I am not talking about the negligence which led directly to the disaster, if there was negligence. It could have been a natural phenomenon. I am talking about the negligence of the Houses of the Oireachtas in not voting moneys to back up the Bill passed here three or four years ago. That negligence effectively sterilised the harbour board which was set up. Because of that negligence we probably contributed to the disaster.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are establishing a judicial inquiry and now we are setting out to decide the issues ourselves. The Chair cannot allow the Deputy to continue on those lines. That would be completely out of order.

Mr. Deasy

I got something out of it anyway.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not fair to the Chair, the Deputy, the House, or the inquiry.

Mr. Deasy

It is extremely relevant. People may not like to have it brought up, but it is a fact of life.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not. We are establishing a judicial inquiry to decide these things. It is not up to the Deputy to decide them.

Mr. Deasy

I want to refer to an omission in the Minister's speech. I want to refer also to a matter which arose at Question Time two or three weeks ago. In the course of his speech the Minister said:

The Garda, Army and Navy personnel have done a tremendous job. The shipowners, terminal operators, salvors and their employees have worked in very difficult and dangerous conditions to make the wreck safe and contain the risk of oil spillage.

We all join in those sentiments and wish to thank the people concerned. A lot of them were up day and night for weeks in the hope of finding survivors or looking for bodies. But there is no mention of the fact that the British Navy provided a number of helicopters, that they worked exceedingly hard for several days, and in particular for several nights, because the Irish rescue services did not have the same facilities. I thought it a particularly nasty type of attitude that was adopted the day that Deputy White questioned the Minister for Defence on this matter—that he could not express gratitude to the British Naval personnel concerned. Everybody, English, Irish, French, or whoever took part in the attempt to find bodies is entitled to the same treatment when it comes to handing out thanks. I would make reference also to the fact that officials of various Departments are thanked in the Minister's speech for all the work they did. I have no doubt that the bulk of them did a very efficient job. However I should like to place on record that on my visit to the Bantry Bay area I found a lot of people disenchanted with the high-handed attitude adopted by a number of officials, especially in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I should like to bring those points to the attention of the Minister. We might express gratitude to everybody concerned—and I am sure the bulk of them deserve our thanks—but there was great dissatisfaction with the attitude of a minority, particularly people from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, who gave no co-operation at all to local fishing interests.

We are told also in the Minister's speech:

The damage caused by pollution and the use of dispersants has been kept to a minimum.

In that regard I am told that pollution was fairly extensive but that, in many cases, the amount of dispersant used was such that it killed every type of fish life in the immediate area, that it was not kept to a minimum but was grossly over-used. I wonder what technical knowledge is available to our various Government Departments on occasions like that. Are we conversant with the methods of dealing with such pollution, or is it a case of merely swamping the place in the hope that one will eliminate the traces of oil and tar? I am told that the amount of dispersants distributed on the surface, which sank to the bottom, did more damage than the pollution itself.

I welcome the setting up of the tribunal and the opportunity to discuss the motion. I regret that the chair has curtailed my efforts to go into the matter in greater detail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has not.

Mr. Deasy

But perhaps we will be afforded another opportunity of doing so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not wish to curtail any Deputy when he is quite in order.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Faulkner)

I should like to thank Deputies for the very constructive way they approached this motion. I have no doubt that the House is united in its desire to ensure that every effort is made to find out the truth of what happened to cause the dreadful disaster at Bantry Bay on 8 January last. For our part the Government are satisfied that the brief which is being given to the tribunal of inquiry has the necessary wide-ranging scope to enable the tribunal to make the best possible effort to do this. As I have said in my opening speech, there are tragic aspects of this disaster which made the task of the tribunal difficult in the extreme—those who were most intimately involved in the events into which the tribunal will inquire did not survive. Nevertheless we just all hope that the work of examination and investigation which has to be carried out in a most through way by the experts to whom I have assigned the task will be well done, will enable the tribunal to establish the causes and circumstances of the disaster and, if necessary, to recommend measures which will contribute to the avoidance of such terrible events in the future.

I may not have sufficiently emphasised in my speech the very high degree of co-operation which existed amongst all the parties in Bantry in the aftermath of the disaster. I cannot praise too highly the dedication with which the many difficult tasks were undertaken and the efficiency with which they were handled. As I have said, the oil pollution was kept to a minimum. The job of cleaning up the pollution that occurred was undertaken in an efficient manner. The dispersants were used as prudently and as effectively as possible to ensure that the damage was kept to a minimum.

The gas-freeing of the vessel in order to make it safe was completed by the salvors in most difficult and highly dangerous circumstances. I do not think the public realise how very difficult and dangerous that particular operation was. Having regard to the scale of the disaster, the hazards to life and to the environment which remained in the aftermath of the disaster, all concerned deserve our thanks for the way in which the situation was handled.

Deputy O'Donnell said he was somewhat perturbed about my statement relating to the commencement of the inquiry. At this stage it is not possible for me to give the date of commencement. I would hope to be in a position shortly to name the assessors who will assist the tribunal. It must be recognised that the various interested parties, their experts, and the legal representatives require time to assemble the evidence, to carry out the necessary research, experiments and so on, to prepare reports and brief counsel. It is appreciated that the vessel was in a highly dangerous state for quite a considerable time after the disaster and the first priority was to remove the remaining oil from the bow section and to eliminate the danger of further fires or explosions. It was only when these very difficult tasks had been successfully accomplished that the bow section of the vessel was available for examination. As the House is aware, the mid section and the after section of the vessel are still in the sea bed adjacent to the jetty and it remains to be decided how those sections will be dealt with. Investigations are, of necessity, of a very highly complex scientific and technical nature.

Mr. Deasy

Will the Minister tell us how much oil is left?

Mr. Faulkner

Please allow me to continue. I did not interrupt anybody.

In the particular circumstances of this accident, where there were no survivors among those directly involved—the investigation and examination of the wreck are of vital importance to the inquiry and it is therefore essential to ensure that the investigations are carried out by highly qualified experts and under strict control and supervision and that the evidence is carefully assembled for the inquiry. This work is continuing and it could have some bearing on the timing of the opening of the inquiry.

I was asked by Deputy Corish and a number of other Deputies about the assessors. I would hope shortly to be able to announce the names of the assessors who will assist the tribunal. I know that Deputies realise the importance of the inquiry and the need to have assessors of the requisite expertise and experience. Because of the scale of the disaster and in view of the fact that we do not have any large tankers in our merchant fleet, I have approached several other countries asking for their assistance in nominating possible appointees. I have obtained considerable assistance but the matter is not yet sufficiently advanced to enable me to announce the names of the assessors. Deputies will appreciate that those persons equipped to undertake the work of assessors are likely to be in positions of responsibility and importance and arrangements must be made to obtain their consent to act as assessors and to facilitate their absence from their present jobs for the duration of what could be a fairly lengthy inquiry. I can assure the House that assessors of the highest calibre will be appointed.

Deputy Corish referred to what he termed our slowness in getting this inquiry off the ground. The same thing was mentioned by Deputy Quinn. I might add that the only sour note in the whole course of our discussions here came from Deputy Quinn. I can appreciate that, because in the past two months he has extracted the last ounce of publicity from this unfortunate disaster by publicly claiming, in season and out of season, that we were tardy in setting up this tribunal, and he now finds himself here today in a minority of one. I am referring not simply to his remarks here today but to his remarks on the previous Bill and on other occasions. In this connection I must admit that I am not the most avid reader of Dáil reports, but Deputy Quinn's remarks were brought to my attention. The only thing I can say to Deputy Quinn is that personal abuse is no substitute for constructive criticism.

Because this matter was raised it is necessary for me to relate in some detail what we have done in relation to the setting up of the inquiry and what has been going on since the disaster took place. On 8 January, the day of the disaster, I chaired a meeting of representatives of all the interested Government Departments—my own Departments of Tourism and Transport and Posts and Telegraphs; the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy; the Department of the Environment; the Department of Defence, including the Army and Naval Services; the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Labour—to review the entire situation, to identify the responsibilities of the various Departments and to plan the action which needed to be taken. This group continued to meet, very often under my chairmanship, for several weeks while the emergency at Bantry continued.

At that first meeting arrangements were made to establish co-ordination and control centres at the Department of Defence in Dublin and at the Court House in Bantry. These were manned on a continuous basis by officials of interested Departments. Emergency communications facilities were established to provide for ease of communication. The Bantry control centre had responsibilities both in relation to the pollution and to the salvage operations. Two senior officials of my Department were assigned full time to Bantry to supervise the salvage operations, the protection of evidence and the assembly of evidence to place before the tribunal of inquiry. Any actions in any of these areas were subject to my supervision and approval. On 9 January, the day after the disaster, I appointed a surveyor from my Department to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the disaster under section 465 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. On the same day I announced that there would be a sworn inquiry into the disaster. I might add that the Taoiseach had already indicated on the previous day that a full public inquiry would be held into the disaster.

All possible measures were taken to ensure that the necessary resources and manpower would be available to cope with any pollution arising. These resources included ships of the Naval Service equipped with detergent and disposal equipment. The Department of Fisheries dispatched to Bantry their research vessel, Lough Beltra, which was equipped with special water sampling equipment. Cork County Council co-operated very fully in the anti-pollution measures. Meetings were held by me and by officials of my Department with representatives of Gulf Oil, the salvers and the insurers to review the progress of the salvage operations, the anti-pollution measures and the protection and assembly of evidence for the tribunal of inquiry. The task of the supervision of the salvage operations and the protection and assembly of evidence for the tribunal of inquiry were such that I decided to augment the professional expertise of the marine section of my Department by the engagement of additional experts.

I obtained very substantial assistance in this regard from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. They provided experts in quite a variety of areas—chemists, photographers, naval architects, civil engineers, metallurgists and diving expertise. The institute also provided the services of the head of their Marine Resources Division. They helped to advise and co-ordinate on various aspects of research, analysis and so on and they provided laboratory facilities as they became necessary. Specialist firms were employed to assist with diving and other work. I decided also to obtain expert advice from abroad.

It is worth while giving this information because it shows how carefully we operated in relation to this whole matter. We obtained expertise from abroad in certain areas. A naval architect and two metallurgists were engaged from Lloyds Register of Shipping, the world-wide classification society. I have also asked Lloyds Register to carry out an examination of a sister ship of the Betelgeuse which is at present in Taiwan. We also obtained the services of a former Engineer Surveyor-in-Chief of the British Department of Trade, who is an ex-chairman of the subcommittee on fire protection of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, to carry out an investigation into the cause and effects of the fire and explosion. Four officers of Irish Shipping Limited, two master mariners and two engineers have been assisting the team in Bantry. Representatives of other interested parties with a direct interest in the hearings before the tribunal of inquiry have been afforded facilities to examine the wreck with my consent and under my supervision. A press notice notifying interested parties of the availability of such facilities was published in the daily newspapers of 5 February 1979. From all this it will be clear that this whole matter was handled efficiently and as rapidly as one could expect.

I must say I appreciate very much the expressions of a number of Deputies in regard to the fact that we have moved as rapidly as possible in relation to this matter. I have also had comments of foreign observers. There was a very favourable comment on a German radio programme about the manner in which we had dealt with this matter and most Deputies will have read the comments of the Permanent Adviser to the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of the EEC, Mr. Despicht, who led a ten-man working group to Bantry. He is quoted as saying that they were particularly impressed by the serious, efficient and non-hysterical manner in which the problem at Bantry was tackled. He is quoted as saying also that if everybody reacted like this we might be on the way to solving major pollution problems caused by oil tanker accidents in Europe. I mention these matters because it had been suggested by some Deputies, but not by many, that we were tardy in our efforts to set up this tribunal.

Deputy O'Keeffe referred to the terms of the motion but I assure him that these terms are as wide as are necessary and I think he will find that the problems he mentioned are overcome by section 2 and partly by section 3 of the terms of reference.

Deputy Murphy asked whether somebody having a direct interest in the inquiry would have the right to be represented legally. Any person with a direct interest will be entitled to be represented legally. The Deputy asked also about the making available of public funds for such a person. The position in that regard is that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1979 gives power to the tribunal to direct that the costs of any person appearing before the tribunal shall be paid by any person named by the tribunal.

Deputy Quinn asked whether we had improved the telecommunications system at Bantry. The fact is that the telecommunications system there worked very well during the period after the tragedy occurred but we will be supplementing the system considerably for the tribunal. The Deputy can rest assured that the additional facilities will be provided in good time.

Deputy Deasy raised the question of compensation. In this regard I should like to make it clear that there are arrangements for compensation for damage caused by oil pollution. Funds have been established by tanker owners and oil companies which provide for payment of up to 36 million dollars for a single pollution incident. That is under the TOVALOP and CRISTAL schemes. I think I have answered most of the questions raised.

Mr. O'Donnell

A number of Deputies as well as myself raised the question of recommendations and asked for an assurance that any such recommendations would be acted on if they entailed legislation.

Mr. Faulkner

The motion provides for the making of recommendations by the tribunal having regard to its findings. Any such recommendations will have the sympathetic consideration of the Government.

Mr. Deasy

Is there any estimate of the amount of oil remaining in the wreck?

Mr. Faulkner

No, but the indications are that there is very little left.

Question put and agreed to.