Two Deputies were granted permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the threat of an oil spillage off the Irish coast. Deputy Quinn was in first, followed by Deputy Fitzpatrick. I suggest we give them ten minutes each, and give ten minutes to the Minister to reply to which he is entitled.
Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: Oil Spillage Threat.
First, I should like to thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter. I want to seek information and to exhort the Minister to pursue certain courses of action. In that spirit I should like to make the following remarks. There is concern about the possible threat which existed in the latter part of last week to the Irish coastline from the tanker the Christos Bitas. Fortunately that threat has now diminished but it is questionable whether that diminution has been brought about as a result of action taken by the Irish and British authorites or to the good weather prevailing at the moment.
A number of questions arise which I would like the Minister to answer. First of all, I understand the Minister for Defence has responsibility for environmental measures, such as protection at sea and so on, while the Minister for the Environment here at the moment has responsibility for protection of the shore. Perhaps the Minister would clarify for us the relationship between both Ministries. Where an environmental hazard at sea threatens our shore what co-ordination is there between the Department of Defence, the Department of the Environment and the local authorities, in this instance along the eastern coast?
A report in the Sunday Observer carries the bannerline: “Irish Anger over Oil Spillage Danger”. It would appear from the report that the Irish authorities—I presume the Department of the Environment—were not promptly and properly informed about the danger of this oil spillage until long after the Christos Bitas had been pushed out into the middle of the Irish Sea. I would like the Minister to tell us what the precise nature of the communication was between the British and Irish authorities, when the first communication was received from the British counterparts of the Department's officials and the flow and regularity of the information, as distinct from the actual content of the communication. I accept there may well be some degree of confidentiality involved but I want to know when the first contact was made and how regularly officials were kept up to date on the developments. I am not looking for the date or time the Marine Rescue Corps at Shannon was informed because I understand the corps was informed by the coast guard authorities in Britain.
The second matter I would like the Minister to clarify is whether the Department of the Environment was consulted by its British counterpart when it was known that a comparatively large tanker travelling up the Irish Sea, actually crossing the Irish Sea destined for Belfast, ran aground on rocks off Milford Haven. It would appear, according to informed sources, that the correct environmental advice then would have been to order the tanker back into Milford Haven and to treat the possible spillage within the confines of Milford Haven. I understand the tanker was ordered by the British authorities to proceed on its journey to Belfast across the Irish Sea. I want to know were the Irish authorities at any time contacted by the Milford Haven authorities or the responsible British authorities as to what our opinion might be about the Christos Bitas continuing on its journey. I want to know categorically the regular and full flow of information between environmental officials on both sides of the Irish Sea and the specific decision to order the Christos Bitas to proceed to Belfast. Were we at any stage consulted on that decision?
There are a number of general questions then on which the Minister should indicate the position of the Government or his own opinion. Is the Minister satisfied with the procedures adopted by local authorities to deal with oil pollution particularly in terms of its effect on our beaches, procedures which were put in operation after the disastrous spillage on the coast of Brittany? Is the Minister satisfied with the standby procedures over the weekend? Can he make available to the House the contents of the report prepared by an official of his Department and an official of the Department of Defence? I have already asked for this in a letter to the Minister but I now ask him formally if he would make that report available in order to allay the fears many have, including fishery and tourism organisations, about our capacity to deal with an oil spillage if it heads towards our coast. We, as an Opposition, cannot evaluate the state of readiness of the responsible authorities unless and until we know exactly what the procedures are and the contents of the report. If we do not have that information we have no option but to attack in open forum and that is not the kind of opposition I want to provide.
Finally, I am not sure whether it is the Minister for the Environment I should be attacking or whether it should be he in conjunction with the Minister for Tourism and Transport and, indeed the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but since we were assured by the Taoiseach that collective responsibility exists perhaps I will be excused for addressing Minister Barrett wearing these three hats. What proposals does the Minister have in the light of this particular incident for monitoring all vessels in the Irish Sea carrying environmentally dangerous cargoes? Has the Minister considered the possibility of joint monitoring services between the Irish and British authorities similar to those provided by the British to direct movement in the English Channel? From the middle of next year, if my information is correct, there will be a Japanese vessel—the keel has been laid—sailing up and down the Irish Sea carrying nuclear waste to Windscale. The environmental hazard of that type of cargo makes an oil spillage look like candy floss. Windscale is going ahead. We are in the throes of the Christos Bitas experience. Would the Minister consider in conjunction with the British authorities or under the aegis of the EEC some proposals for monitoring all environmentally dangerous substances in narrow waters? I know there are certain legal implications in regard to designating waters within the EEC with a possible loss of national sovereignity over such waters but there are certain precedents with regard to fishery protection and these could be used with regard to environmental protection monitoring.
My first two questions are designed to gather information. When was the Department notified? What were the contents of the report prepared by the official of the Minister's Department and the official of the Department of Defence? Thirdly, were we specifically consulted about pushing the Christos Bitas out into the Irish Sea directly threatening our shores? Finally, is the Minister prepared to consider the other two matters I raised.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Today I gave notice that I intended to raise on the adjournment the question of the adequacy of the machinery available and the effectiveness of the steps which can be taken to protect our coast against the consequences of a major oil spillage, such as that at present threatened by the Christos Bitas, and the recovery of the cost of such protection.
I am concerned at the threat to the economy, particularly to the tourist industry, to our wild life right along that coast on which there are some very valuable bird sanctuaries, and to possible damage to our fisheries. If one could spell out in detail the damage that could be done under the heading of tourism, wild life and fisheries it could be enormous.
This incident arose from the fact that this tanker was severely damaged in British waters and, apparently, in that damaged condition found its way into Irish waters and intended proceeding right up the Irish coast. There is a question to be answered there by someone and it is up to the Government as a whole or to the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Tourism and Transport to find out how this tanker in a damaged and dangerous condition was either ordered or permitted to proceed from British waters into Irish waters and right up the Irish coast. As Deputy Quinn has said, all's well that ends well and it looks as if on this occasion we will get away without any serious damage being done, but let us learn the lesson from this episode and let what could have happened be brought home to us. The House and the country are entitled to know whether any blame attaches to the British Board of Trade or any other authority concerned. I believe it does. If so, it is up to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see that the blame is brought home and that an explanation is obtained.
I should like to say a word or two about certain international conventions which were negotiated for the purpose of protecting, firstly, the high seas and the coasts of the various countries concerned, and secondly, for the purpose of enabling damaged countries or persons to obtain compensation. First of all, there is the international convention of 1969 relating to intervention on the high seas in cases of oil pollution casualties. That convention came into force inter-nationally on 6 May 1975 and a Bill known as the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1976 was introduced here in the early days of 1977 and passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas for the purpose of enabling this country to ratify that convention. I want to know whether the Government have ratified that convention. Has the Minister for Tourism and Transport made any of the regulations which he is authorised to make under this measure for the purpose of protecting the high seas and the coast? Has the convention of 1969 been ratified?
Arising out of this casualty we are involved in very considerable expense. We had a number of craft standing by and we are involved in an immense sum of money due to this tanker having come into our waters in a damaged condition. I now refer to two other international conventions, namely, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and the international convention of 1971 relating to the establishment of an international fund for oil pollution damage.
When the Bill of 1976 was being debated in this House in the early days of 1977 the present Minister for the Environment, then spokesman for Transport and Power, said it was a great pity that we did not avail of that opportunity to introduce legislation to enable us to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability of 1969 and the international convention relating to the establishment of an international compensation fund of 1971. I, as Minister for Transport and Power, told him that there was legislation in my Department which was at an advanced stage and I hoped to introduce it later that year. As we know, the general election prevented me from having that privilege. During the 18 months or so in which the Government have been in office, have they introduced that legislation to enable them to ratify these two conventions which are very material now, conventions which provide for compensation for damage which has been done? From a newspaper account today, my information is that the legislation has not yet been introduced and I am satisfied that because it has not been introduced these two conventions have not been ratified. Who is to pay the enormous bill incurred by this State arising out of this incident, the drifting into Irish waters of this lame duck tanker in a damaged and dangerous condition? At a later stage I will want to know the amount of the bill; it cannot be less than £1 million. Who is to pay? Are we without certain machinery that would enable us to recover that compensation because the Government have not introduced legislation which is ready within the Department to enable them to ratify the two conventions to which I have referred?
I do not think I will have time to answer each specific question but I will try. The House may recall that in my reply at the time of the Estimates debate I dealt in detail with the arrangements for the clearance of oil pollution. To remove any doubts, I will go into some detail again in order to satisfy everyone as to what is involved. I should like to stress that the plans which I mentioned have worked satisfactorily.
In the case of this major threat to our coastline, information was quickly received from the Marine Rescue Co-ordinating Centre, to which I will refer as MRCC, on the morning of Friday, 13 October, that the tanker was in difficulties off the Wexford coast. The contingency arrangements for such a situation were put in train immediately and there was full communication between the Irish and British authorities. I shall deal with this in more detail later. What is clear is that the arrangements worked and that we have been spared from damage to our shores, which is the most important feature. I trust that this situation will continue and I believe that the danger is receding. Everything possible was done to ensure that we were prepared and ready. I would hope that Deputies would be happy to know that this was the outcome and would congratulate in due course the authorities concerned. I trust that what I have said already and the further information I will now give will enable Deputies to do that later.
While primary responsibility for the clearance of oil pollution rests on the persons responsible for causing the spillages, contingency plans capable of being brought into operation as necessary at short notice to deal with oil spillages which affect or may threaten coastal areas have been prepared by the various authorities involved. The Department of the Environment have a general responsibility for arrangements for the clearance of oil pollution, subject to specific responsibilities of other Departments and bodies. Maritime local authorities who operate under the Department of the Environment are responsible for clearance of oil from beaches and immediately offshore. Harbour authorities deal with oil spillages in harbours. The Department of Defence are responsible for clearance of oil at sea. Other bodies with responsibilities in the matter include the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, who are responsible for control of pollution emanating from offshore oil exploration, and the Department of Tourism and Transport, who are responsible for the control of discharges of oil from vessels. The Department of Fisheries, believe it or not, have overall responsibility for the protection of fisheries and wildlife. The Office of Public Works are concerned in relation to State Harbours. A liaison committee chaired by an officer of my Department and representatives of appropriate Government Departments, the County and City Managers Association, the County and City Engineers Association, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the Institution of Engineers of Ireland keep the contingency plans of the various bodies involved under review.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is all very interesting, but it does not answer one question that was put.
I will come to the Deputy's questions. I was asked what was involved. These are the people who are involved. Each local authority and harbour authority have also appointed an oil pollution officer who is responsible for bringing the contingency plan into operation when necessary.
With regard to this incident, information was received by the MRCC at Shannon at approximately 5 a.m. on Friday, 13 October that this tanker was in difficulty about 20 miles east of the Tusker Rock. Immediately the contingency arrangements for dealing with such a situation were put in train, Irish and British officials were in constant communication by phone and radio in regard to the developing situation. A central co-ordinating centre was established in the Department of Defence in Parkgate Street for dealing with the operations at sea. The team in constant attendance there included an officer of my Department. Under the standing arrangements to deal with oil pollution, the Department of Defence are responsible for this at sea. A local centre was set up in Wexford for putting into effect the contingency plans for dealing with possible pollution to the coastline. An inspector from the Department was immediately sent to the centre to coordinate local arrangements. A bay skimmer was procured from Gulf Oil, Bantry. A tug was got from Cork and also spraying equipment for use in the tug. Vast supplies of dispersals were located and transported to Wexford. Spraying equipment was provided for use by our naval vessels. Arrangements were made to have further large supplies of dispersals on call. Supplies of equipment for inshore protection were placed on call and ready to be transported to the Wexford area if needed. Arrangements were also made for providing fuel for naval and other vessels working for us. These are briefly the arrangements which were set in train and what happened and how well they were put into operation.
Deputy Quinn in his contribution mentioned the question of monitoring at sea.
Were we specifically consulted by the British authorities about moving the ship?
From the moment the ship came to a stop continuous consultation has gone on between the two Governments.
What about when she was on the rocks?
The Minister has just four minutes.
I gave the time already. There was continuous consultation.
Would it be right to infer that they pushed it out into the sea first and then told us?
That is a matter of conjecture. What I want to emphasise is that there was continuous communication from the time the ship came to a stop. and the last communication we have had was no later than 6 o'clock this evening. Continuous consultation took place by radio and telephone.
(Cavan-Monaghan): How did it get into our waters in a damaged condition?
I do not want to go into that. It was on its way originally to Belfast, as the Deputy understands.
The Minister has only three minutes.
Deputy Quinn wondered about the monitoring of these vessels going up and down our coastline. This is the responsiility of the Department of Tourism and Transport and this is under discussion at the Council of Ministers. I would also add that there is a question on this matter which I expect might be answered by Thursday and where this could be clarified.
With regard to the question of what involvement I had at Council of Ministers level—I do not know if the Deputy mentioned it tonight but he mentioned it between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock in that programme on Sunday. At the last Council of Ministers meeting I supported a resolution with regard to making assistance available to the member states in the event of such an occurrence. That went on to the Commission and we will have further discussion at the next meeting. The Deputy can be assured that it has my support.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Was the tanker ordered into our waters by the British authorities?
Not to my knowledge. That is what I have just said.
Did we know anything about the vessel until she broke down?
I have already said what we know about the vessel. We were notified and I gave the time a while ago. I do not think it is necessary to go back over it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We got no notification of that?
It was approximately eight hours afterwards.
I gave the time as 5 a.m., if I remember correctly. The important thing to bear in mind is, first of all, we were lucky that it did not happen.
Agreed.
But we should also be pleased and satisfied that our contingency plans were brought into operation so quickly——
(Cavan-Monaghan): Who is going to pay?
——without any delay whatsoever and that the proper co-ordination took place between all the bodies involved, something for which my Department have general responsibility. I would like to take this opportunity of at least paying tribute to all these bodies, including the Department of Defence and a body that has nothing to do with the Government, Gulf Oil, who readily came on the scene and offered their vessel, but their vessel was not able to function out at sea for the simple reason that the spillage was not deep enough.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Who is going to pay the piper?
But it was there standing by in the event of this happening and the end result is that our contingency plans did work and the proof is there.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Who is going to pay?
With regard to the report of the meetings and discussions that took place after the Brittany incident, Deputy Quinn asked were these available here. I doubt if I would be in a position to release a report that has to do with another matter.
What about the cost of it?
Would the Minister conclude now. The time is up.
If I might answer that question, the Minister for Tourism and Transport is taking that matter up. It is his responsibility.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 October 1978.