asked the Minister for Transport if it is intended to move the remaining portion of the Betelgeuse from its present location in Bantry Bay to deeper water in the near future; and if he considers that adequate precautions are available for the prevention of pollution.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - “Betelgeuse” Location.
23.
Salvage operations to lift the wreck of the after-section of the Betelgeuse are in progress at present. Until the after-section has been lifted and examined, it is not possible to say how it will be disposed of. There is continuing consultation between the Government Departments concerned and the salvers on the matter. As regards prevention of pollution, I would refer the Deputy to the reply of the Minister for the Environment to his question on this subject on 22 May 1980.
Does the Minister not think that it is an inopportune time to risk pollution in Bantry Bay, at the peak of the tourist season? Could the authorities not have waited until the autumn to carry out this salvage work?
I am advised by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry that they are satisfied that the personnel and equipment necessary to safeguard all interests in this matter are at hand and that this is the best time of the year for such an operation in that calm weather which is necessary for this type of operation is more likely than the kind of weather you might get later in the year.
In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that he is satisfied that the standards operating are sufficient to protect all interests, is he aware of the reply given by the Minister of State last week on behalf of the Minister for the Environment which admitted that in order to try to clean the foreshore of pollution there had to be an unacceptably high level of pollution from the Betelgeuse allowed to seep into the sea at present and that he was far from satisfied with the situation? Is the Minister aware of that?
When the dredging necessary to prepare for this lift was going on there was very little pollution. It was, in fact, negligible. About 500 litres, I understand, escaped and it was quickly taken care of. It has not been established how much oil remains in the after-section. It could be zero and then there would be no possibility of any pollution.
Very unlikely.
There may be up to 1,000 tons but it will not be crude oil. I understand that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry are absolutely satisfied that the equipment is there. In fact there is a specialist adviser on the ground at this time to advise on any measures that might be necessary to control this matter. I am assured that there is no danger of pollution to marine life or damage to the tourist trade as a result of the lifting of this after section. It is important to get rid of the wreck of this ship from Bantry Bay. I think this is the best time to do it when there is the least possibility of any pollution and because of that I think we should all be in support of the project to see the end of it.
If we have pollution, which I think is likely, who will be responsible for mopping up and who will pay the cost?
Considerable costs have already been incurred by the salvers in respect of this project. They have the necessary equipment on hand. Departmental officials have been down there and have inspected all factors concerned with the possibility of any pollution. They are absolutely satisfied that everything is being done in a professional way to guarantee that there will not be any pollution in this area because of this lift. There is a continuing danger of pollution if we do not lift it so we might as well get rid of it.
Would the Minister answer this question and no other one? I would like an answer to the question I am about to ask.
The Deputy should ask the question.
We are asking questions and we are not getting answers to them.
The Chair is not responsible for that.
The Deputy is engaging in repetition.
Unfortunately we have to because we are not getting answers to the questions we are asking.
The Deputy should ask a brief question. He cannot preface every question with a long statement.
(Cavan-Monaghan): When the Minister gets trained it will not be necessary.
What was that comment from Deputy Fitzpatrick?
I want to assure the Minister that none of us want to leave this wreck where it is. Is he aware, and if not will he make himself aware, of three separate answers, including his today, to a similar type of question with regard to pollution from the Betelgeuse, one from the Minister for Defence, one from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and one from himself, all of them in total conflict with each other with regard to the question of pollution? Will he accept that the conflict in the replies amounts to pollution in this House?
The Deputy now is imparting information. He cannot impart information at Question Time.
Is the Minister aware of the replies to this question from the two Ministers referred to? Will he look them up and will he agree that they are in total conflict with each other?
I am aware of the replies given and I cannot see the conflict. I regard the Deputy's statement as misleading. The question down to me asked about the lifting of the after section of the Betelgeuse. We are all agreed that it should be lifted at the earliest possible time.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 24. We are getting into argument now.
The question asks if the Minister considers that adequate precautions are available for the prevention of pollution.
I would like, because of some of the press coverage given in relation to this matter——
What chance have we got when the Minister will not even read the questions.
Deputy Keating should allow questions to continue.
I am satisfied that everything is being done by all concerned to make sure that there is no pollution because of this lift and that everything is being done to protect the environment, marine life and the tourist trade in the Bantry Bay area.