asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he is aware of the continuing oil pollution in Bantry Bay; the up-to-date information on the prospect of further pollution from the sunken hull of the Betelgeuse and the steps proposed to deal with the problem.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bantry Bay Pollution.
16.
My latest information is that there is a slight continuing leak from the wreck of the Betelgeuse which is causing very light iridescence in the area of the wreck. Clean-up operations are still in progress on the shoreline but this activity is almost entirely related to pollution caused by the initial leakages.
Salvage operations on the mid and after sections of the wreck are continuing. This is a very difficult task in view of the damage caused to the vessel and will take some time to complete. The wreck is under water and it is impossible to ascertain at this stage the extent of any pollution risk that may still exist.
The operations are under the constant supervision of the interested Departments and Cork County Council. There is a work force of 147 men employed on the clean-up operations and the necessary anti-pollution equipment, including booms, boats and a light aircraft, is available to deal with any pollution which may occur.
Would the Minister take the view that the clean-up operation should be expedited and completed at the earliest possible date?
Yes, and that is what is being done. The matter is being speeded up as fast as possible. Of course, the Deputy will accept that it is a difficult task that will have to be done properly.
I ask the Minister to check his information. He says that this operation is being speeded up. I put it to him that not alone is it not being speeded up but it has been slowed down in recent weeks. Is the Minister aware that the working week of the people involved in this clean-up has been cut considerably in recent weeks?
I have pointed out to the Deputy that 147 men are employed in the clean-up operation.
Is the Minister aware that the working week of those involved in this clean-up operation has been cut recently?
I am not aware of that. I can check.
Would the Minister take steps to ensure, if the information I have is correct—as I believe it is, having spoken to people involved in this clean-up operation—that the operation is expedited at this stage and that these men are put back to working as long hours as they are able to in order to complete the job?
I will check on what the Deputy has said, but he is aware that there are priority areas being dealt with. As soon as those areas are dealt with the operations will be extended. However, I will inquire into the point that the Deputy has raised.
Is the Minister not aware that the whole of Bantry Bay is a tourist area?
Of course the Minister is aware. I am very well aware of that.
Who is footing the bill at present? Is it the Department of the Environment and, if so, what efforts will be made to recoup the funds paid from there?
That is quite a different question. If the Deputy puts down a question I will answer it.
Who is paying for it? Surely the Minister knows who is footing the bill for the clean-up going on at present in Bantry Bay.
As the Deputy knows, the matter is being dealt with by Cork County Council at present, and these expenses will be recovered.
The Minister said that the current oil pollution on the shore is now caused almost entirely by the pollution that was there prior to the sinking of the Betelgeuse. Obviously, by implication, some of the current pollution must be coming from the Betelgeuse.
I have already stated that there is a very slight leagage still.
With all due respect, how could a decision have been taken to sink the Betelgeuse and how could an assurance be given to the public—by the Minister, if I recall the press reports rightly—that there would be no further risk from the sinking of the Betelgeuse, and yet we now have this additional pollution?
The Deputy is not referring to the same thing. The part of the Betelgeuse that was sunk was what I was referring to when I said that there would not be any further pollution from it. We are concerned now with the part of the ship which is sunk at the jetty.
I apologise; I misunderstood.
In that area there is a very light leakage.
17.
asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if, when introducing the promised legislation to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage 1971, the legislation will be made retrospective to safeguard the claims of fishermen, tourism interests, and any others who suffered losses as a result of the recent pollution.
The legislation to enable this country to become a contracting party to the two conventions in question will not be made retrospective. I am advised that the conventions themselves cannot be applied retrospectively and that our domestic law does not need to be made retrospective as claims for compensation for losses suffered as a result of the recent oil pollution are adequately protected by existing law.
Does that pertain even if the offending party happens to be from a foreign State?
The Deputy is aware that there are two funds, the TOVALOP and CRISTAL schemes, from which the money can be made available.
Even on an international basis? Is the Minister aware that the funds became exhausted in the case of the Amoco Cadiz disaster?
My information in relation to it is that the money is there and the fund provides for payment up to 36 million dollars for any single pollution incident.