asked the Minister for the Marine the total cost of removing oil from the Kowloon Bridge; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kowloon Bridge Disaster.
2.
asked the Minister for the Marine the total cost of the removal of oil and cargo from the Kowloon Bridge; if all of the iron ore has been removed from the vessel; the total cost of the clean-up operation arising from the incident; the amount of the total cost which has been recovered from the owners of the vessel; the steps, if any, which are being taken to recover outstanding money from the owners; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
15.
asked the Minister for the Marine the action, if any, which has been taken against the legal owners of the Kowloon Bridge with a view to obtaining compensation for the environmental damage inflicted on the Irish environment as a result of the abandonment and subsequent sinking of the vessel; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
67.
asked the Minister for the Marine the total cost to the State of the repair and cleaning work which has been carried out at both national and local level as a result of the environmental damage caused by the sinking of the Kowloon Bridge; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take oral Questions Nos. 2, 10, 15, and also written Question No. 67 together.
The total cost to my Department of the oil and paint removal operation and incidental expenditure amounted to approximately £564,000. The cargo of iron ore was not removed from the wreck as analysis of these samples confirmed that the cargo did not pose a threat to the marine environment.
The total cost to the Department of the Environment, which includes local authority expenditure, of the beach clean-up operation and incidental expenditure amounted to approximately £991,000. Costs of other Government Departments involved in the State's response to the environmental threat from the Kowloon Bridge amounted to approximately £188,000. A total compensation claim of £1.743 million has been presented to the insurers and I would hope that the insurers will agree to pay this sum at an early date. If they do not, court proceedings will be commenced against them.
Will the Minister say whether Cork County Council have been compensated for any loss incurred as a result of the clean-up operation? The Taoiseach visited west Cork on 23 March 1987 and said that there would be no loss to the State. Why has it taken this length of time to recover this very substantial loss to the State?
The figure I gave for the Department of the Environment includes the costs incurred by Cork County Council. The total claim has been sent to the insurers and there will be no undue delay in pressing ahead with the settlement of this claim.
Has any lasting environmental or other damage been done, in the view of the Minister or the Department? Would the Minister like to comment on some of the press statements made at the time of the disaster and in the immediate aftermath to the effect that more could have been done by the Department? Have the Department concluded that more could have been done at the time and are there any procedures in place to deal with a similar situation in the future?
I am not sure if there has been any permanent damage resulting from the incident, but it highlights the need for adequate legislative arrangements to deal with incidents of this nature. Further questions will be dealt with this afternoon and it will be indicated that the overall legislative and physical arrangements for dealing with an emergency of this sort are certainly not adequate and must be improved.
Since Question No. 15 is being taken with Question No. 2, may I ask if the Minister is satisfied that the presentation of the bill to the insurers of the Kowloon Bridge will be a sufficient response? Question No. 15 asks if the cost has been presented against the legal owners. I am interested in the distinction between the insurers and the legal owners. The presentation of the bill to the insurers could allow conditions to be brought into the response which would not accrue if the claim were made against the legal owners.
The insurers have stated that the owners' legal liability will be met. They have indicated that the costs arising from those legal liabilities will be met.
May I take it that there will be no mitigation of the owners' liability, that the liability being accepted by the insurers, as has been communicated to the Minister, involves no mitigation of the owners' liability as legal owners of the vessel?
I am satisfied that the total claim which we have lodged with the insurers will be adequate to meet the expenses incurred and the damage arising from this incident. It is our intention to press ahead with a settlement of the claim without recourse to legal proceedings, but in the event of legal proceedings being required, the necessary steps will be taken.
With regard to the iron ore on board, on whose advice did the Minister base his decision that it was not dangerous to the environment and did he seek a second opinion? Did he get any contrary advice?
I do not have that information here but I will communicate with the Deputy. We took samples from the Kowloon Bridge, had them analysed and were satisfied that the iron ore would not be injurious to the environment.
Would the Minister not agree that it is very disturbing for him to come in here to answer a series of questions on the Kowloon Bridge and not be able to assure the House that there has been no lasting damage to the environment? I want to ask him again if he is aware of any lasting environmental damage? Can he categorically assure the House that there has not been any such damage?
I do not know what the Deputy is getting at. Has he something specific in mind? The information we got as a result of an analysis and of work done on the Kowloon Bridge indicates that there is no permanent damage to the environment.
I am only asking the Minister to assure the House that there is no lasting damage to the environment.
Not that I am aware of.
Deputy Avril Doyle.
May I ask——
I am calling Deputy Doyle.
——a final supplementary question?
I will facilitate the Deputy.
In view of the fact that the Minister has pointed out he is satisfied that the amount of the claim will meet the cost of all the damages and of the expenses incurred, could he confirm that this would include the considerable expenses incurred by various environmental groups who carried out a great deal of rehabilitation work along the coastline, particularly with sea birds?
I indicated in reply to previous questions that private individuals will have to make private claims and that we would help in claims of that nature, but we do not have any such claims from environmental groups included in the figure we have claimed.
My query deals with the claims being made against the legal owners. Is there a sum included to cover loss of profits as a result of this disaster, the effect it had on the region in terms of tourism and so on? I do not think it should be left to each individual guesthouse owner or hotelier to lodge a separate claim. Surely the Government should make a claim on behalf of the economy which has suffered a loss because of this disaster?
The claim we have lodged is for the total cost to the various Government Departments involved in this operation. As regards the matter referred to by the Deputy, it is for private individuals to pursue such claims.
The point I am making is that while we may claim for the actual damage caused, there is a consequential loss to the State as a result of this disaster. Surely it is reasonable that any insurance claim should include an amount for the loss of profits to the State because of the damage to the environment and our tourist industry. Surely, it is better that one Government Department should make this claim on behalf of the State.
The costs and compensation claim for environmental damage and protection of the environment include the beach clean up measures, the monitoring of wild life and the protection of Lough Inagh with a boom. Compensation has not been sought for any other environmental damage as compensation for such damage, other than loss of profits, is normally limited to costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement actually taken or to be taken. The State has not undertaken any measures of this nature, and none is planned at this stage. Neither has any damage come to light which would warrant such action. Individuals and private organisations will have to make their own claims.
May I ask——
I am sorry Deputy but we have spent a long time on these questions for obvious reasons. I am now calling on Deputy Sherlock for a final supplementary.
Would the Minister inform the House if the major survey of the Kowloon Bridge incident—for which the Minister promised EC funding — has taken place, and, if so, what are the details?
That survey was undertaken before the work commenced and application for funding was made to the Community. I do not have the information here but if the Deputy puts down a separate question, I will have the information for him. As I said, the survey for the removal of oil was undertaken by divers in the west Cork area.