asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he will make a comprehensive statement on whether the Irish Government have been fully involved in consultations leading up to the decision to sink the Christos Bitas off the Irish coast; whether the Irish Government were represented at the meeting in Britain at which this decision was taken; what representations the Irish Government have made with regard to this whole affair; and whether the Irish Government agree with the course of action now being taken.
Private Notice Question: - Sinking of Tanker.
The Irish Government have been involved at all stages of the lead-up to the decision to sink the vessel Christos Bitas. Officers of my Department have attended three meetings in London in the past six days at which representatives of the British Government and all other interested parties were present. These included the meeting on 25 October at which the decision to sink the tanker in the North Atlantic was taken. In addition there has been constant telephone communication between officials of both Governments. I have personally discussed the matter on a number of occasions with Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, my opposite number at the Department of Trade.
The Irish Government's overriding concern has been that the threat of pollution to our coastline and environment generally should be eliminated as quickly and effectively as possible. The Government fully agree with the course of action now being taken.
I am astonished that the Government would support what could be interpreted as an act of international vandalism by dumping an oil-clogged tanker off our south-west coast. Does the Minister accept that there is a serious risk, a risk which will remain indefinitely, to the coast, the environment and the marine biology of south-east Ireland by virtue of the fact that an unknown quantity of oil remains in the ship? Can the Minister indicate the quantity of sludge in the ship at this time and whether any officers of his Department have analysed the type of oil therein?
I do not accept what the Deputy has said. We have consulted all available expert advisory services. We have studied the proposal carefully. We are satisfied that, having regard to the distance of the sinking site from our coast, the pattern of winds and tides, the prospect of any oil reaching our shores is minimal.
Is the Minister aware that serious concern has been expressed no later than today by the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and that they are in direct conflict with what the Minister has said? Why was the tanker not dragged back to its port of origin, or any other port that would take it, for dismantling in a responsible way instead of being dragged hundreds of miles over the sea to be dumped off what appears to be the dumping ground of Europe, namely, the Irish coast?
I cannot accept that 500 miles off our coast is on the Irish coast. I studied this matter carefully and got all the expert advice that it was possible to get. Obviously, failure to take decisive action would lead to a continuing hazard to the fisheries and environment. Whether any port would accept the ship is another matter.
But the Minister will accept it.
I am not accepting it. As I have explained, it will be 500 miles from the Irish coast. Even if some oil were to escape it would not affect our coast because of the distance between the dumping site and the coast.
(Cavan-Monaghan): May I suggest to the Minister that getting rid of this ship by sinking it was getting rid of it on the cheap and at considerable danger to this country? What consideration has been given to the problem of dealing with this oil when it surfaces, as it is very likely to surface? Can the Minister tell us how much oil is still in the ship? The best opinion I can get is that the tides and currents mean that it will flow towards our coast. Have any long-term arrangements been made to monitor the sunken ship so that evidence of the surfacing of oil can be detected quickly and appropriate action taken?
I do not know where the Deputy got his expert advice but the expert advice given to me is contrary to the advice given to the Deputy. Having consulted a number of authorities in relation to this matter I am unable to think of where he got that advice. There is approximately 1,000 tons of oil on this ship. It is very thick oil and much of it will adhere to the ship. The quantity that is likely to surface will not reach our coast. Let us put this matter in perspective. In October 1974 2,500 tons of crude oil was spilled from a tanker in Bantry Bay. Clean-up operations were successfully undertaken by Gulf Oil in consultation with the Departments of the Environment and Fisheries. We are now talking about a percentage of 1,000 tons of oil which will be more than 500 miles from our coast and efforts are being made here to raise a scare about it.
Would the Minister accept that the acquiescence which his officials have made on his behalf to the request by this private mickey-mouse Greek-owned ship is allowing a privately-owned substandard company to dump its no longer profitable oil-ridden hulk off the western coast and that the probable environmental impact cannot be measured by the Minister's experts or anybody else?
The Chair will not allow an extended argument in the guise of a question.
The Minister's decision amounted to acquiescence to narrow-minded private interests with an unspecified environmental impact. The proper course of action would have been to tow the tanker to a place where it could have been disposed of in a responsible manner.
This is total nonsense. The British and Irish Governments were in close consultation. I was personally in close touch with the British Government and, having examined every possible alternative, we decided this was the proper course of action. It was necessary to take action, I took it and I am convinced it will not do the slightest damage to the environment or to fisheries.
(Interruptions.)
We have had enough of this. I will allow Deputy FitzGerald——
The Minister has spoken about consultations and proposals. Can the House take it that there were not any consultations or an agreement when the tanker initially was pushed over from the British coast towards ours? What action have we taken about that; what rights exist under international law to prevent that happening again, and what steps are we taking to prevent those people doing this kind of thing again?
The full information about the early movements of the vessel after this incident will be, I hope, forthcoming in the course of an inquiry by the British authorities. Without anticipating the outcome of that, I understand it would have been necessary, in any event, for the safety of the vessel that she should be taken away from the immediate vicinity of the rocks in order to avoid the risk of striking them again. The British Minister with whom I discussed the matter told me that, in the circumstances at the time, the British authorities had not got power to detain the vessel. However, I hope that full information will be forthcoming from the commission of inquiry.
We cannot have any more debate on this.
The Minister did not give me a reply.
That is not the Chair's fault. Will the Deputy please resume his seat. The Deputy should be quite satisfied.