asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the extent of the damage caused to fisheries in Bantry Bay by the recent oil disaster; and the person or persons responsible for the payment of compensation to fishermen concerned.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bantry Bay Oil Disaster.
7.
My Department have been keeping the situation at Bantry Bay under close surveillance and I am satisfied from the information to hand that the damage caused to fish stocks in the bay is negligible. There has, of course, been some disruption of fishing in the area. Until responsibility for the oil spillage is established, it is not possible to say where liability for payment of compensation for any losses suffered by fishermen lies.
I put it to the Minister that his statement that the damage to fisheries in Bantry Bay is negligible is grossly inaccurate.
A question Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that there has been no fishing in Bantry Bay for the past four weeks? Is he aware that the small amount of shellfish caught a considerable distance away from where the disaster occurred cannot be sold and that a consignment of shellfish from Castletownbere was rejected on the French market?
All I can tell the Deputy and the House is that two scientific experts from my Department, biologists, have been down there since the unfortunate accident occurred and have been in regular touch with the fishermen concerned. They have helped to supervise the dispersants concerned with the dispersal of oil. They have played an active part in ensuring that the dispersals were of such a nature that they would not harm marine life. All of this attention to the area has resulted in minimal damage to fish stocks in the area. That is my scientific advice.
I put it to the Minister that his advice is completely incorrect. I have been speaking to fishermen and their representatives, and they contradict that statement completely. Will the Minister go down himself on a fact-finding mission?
It is easy for people here to discount the advice of experts who know their jobs.
That statement has been contradicted by everyone I met.
That is nonsense and the Deputy knows it is nonsense.
Was the composition of the detergents or dispersants which were used by the employees of Gulf, and which were subsequently banned on the instructions of one of the Minister's officials, known in advance of the oil disaster to members of his Department?
I do not think that is a relevant question.
It arises in relation to the question of liability and compensation.
That is another day's work. I can assure the House that the officers of my Department, the biologists who were there on the spot, had a major part to play in the preparation of the detergents, in the degree of application of the detergents and in the general dispersal operation. As a result of their attention during the course of that oil clearance, I am reasonably satisfied at present that minimal damage to marine life occurred in the circumstances.
Would the Minister not agree that if any question of compensation arises, there was a direct conflict between the people responsible for cleaning up the oil by using the dispersants, and officials from his Department who said the dispersants were not to be used? There was the question of damage to fisheries either from oil or from the dispersants. Could he give us any indication as to what the state of preparedness was in advance of the disaster?
To some degree the Deputy is just repeating what I said.
I am calling the next question.
I have been on my feet for the past five minutes.
Of course there had to be differences.
This matter will be the subject of an inquiry and I will not allow any more questions.
On a point of order, until such time as the terms of reference are published we have no idea what will be admitted during that inquiry. This item could very well be ruled out. It is not fair to rule out our questions on the basis that there will be a public inquiry.
The Chair has decided that we have had enough supplementary questions.
Arising from the Minister's statement that the damage to fisheries is negligible, I want to assure the Minister that that statement is completely incorrect. Is he aware that the relationship between the officials from his Department who visited Bantry to inquire into the fishery damage and the fishermen was not too amicable? The fishermen were not too satisfied with the consideration they got from the officials. Is the Minister aware of that fact?
I am aware of the fact that one of the fishermen's representatives rang me on one occasion just after the disaster to thank me for the excellent work done by my officials in ensuring that the dispersals were properly organised to ensure minimum damage to marine life.
Of which cumann was he chairman?
Question No. 8.