Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1998

Vol. 493 No. 4

Priority Questions. - Phosphorous Devices.

Michael Bell

Question:

21 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the number, location and dates incendiary devices were found on beaches; the outcome of discussions on the matter with the British Government; the future plans, if any, his Department has in this regard; the cost to date and the estimated future cost; if the British Government will fund the cost; the undersea examination that has been carried out by his Department or by the British authorities; if so, the results of this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16423/98]

Dr. Woods

I am very concerned about the recent appearances of dangerous devices on the east coast. I am disappointed, as I know the UK authorities are, that these devices apparently originated in the Beaufort Dyke dumpsite despite a management regime for the dumpsite which was agreed at ministerial level with the UK two years ago.

On 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 June a total of 28 phosphorus devices were washed up on the east coast comprising 22 devices at the following locations in County Louth: Greenore, Dunany Point, Termonfeckin, Ballaghan Point, Annagassan, Salterstown and Clogher Head; three devices at Gormanstown, County Meath, one device at Loughshinny, County Dublin, and two devices at Greystones and Brittas, County Wicklow.

I have been in contact from the outset with the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt. Hon. George Robertson, MP, and the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dr. Jack Cunningham, MP, as well as with Lord Dubs at the Northern Ireland Office. In addition, officials of my Department have been in regular contact with their counterparts in the various UK Departments concerned. I have sought information urgently on the cause of the disturbance of the Beaufort Dyke dumpsite and if any known disturbance had ceased.

As a result of my inquiries a wide-ranging review by the Ministry for Defence in the UK has been carried out, involving other UK Departments and agencies. This has attempted to ascertain whether activity in the area of Beaufort Dyke could have resulted in a release of the devices which were washed up on the east coast. Preliminary indications are that the incidents early this month may not be attributable to identified activities in or near the dumpsite. I am, however, awaiting a definitive reply in this regard from the UK Secretary of State for Defence and to my request for an urgent meeting at senior official level.

It is known from the scientific survey of the dumpsite carried out by the Scottish Office more than three years ago that some material was short dumped, that is, outside the confines of the charted dumpsite, and lies in areas around the actual dumpsite. The UK hydrographic service is currently carrying out investigations to determine whether dumped material, combined with particular meteorological conditions, could have resulted in devices being washed up on the east coast. In the meantime I have asked the UK authorities to consider further strategies for managing the Beaufort Dyke, for example, extending the area of restriction around the dumpsite, if short dumped material is found to be the source of recent problems.

Mr. Bell

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. Did the Department of Defence or the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources carry out an underwater investigation to find out the cause of dislodgement of these devices? Will the Minister agree that because the British are responsible, they should pay the costs involved? Will he further agree that in accordance with information received from the British Government from time to time regarding Sellafield we are unlikely to believe what it tells us anyway and we should carry out our own investigation?

Dr. Woods

The cost of any further investigation of the dumpsite with a view to ascertaining its stability or state or to improve its management will remain matters for the UK Government. The cost of monitoring the Irish coast and of disposing of these devices is subsumed into the ongoing cost of the emergency services. However, to the extent that these activities have added to costs I will consider funding sources, including an appropriate request to the UK authorities. The matter is still very much under investigation and that relates particularly to the agreements reached earlier, and which have been pursued since, in regard to the management regime in place for Beaufort Dyke dumpsite. It consists of ongoing monitoring and restrictions around the dumpsite for activities such as dredging, drilling, submarine activities, etc. and the current regime will be reviewed in light of the findings of the investigation into the cause of the recent incidents. We are determined to solve the problem in so far as it can be done. It looks most likely that they do not come directly from within Beaufort Dyke, but from around it as a result of short dumping, etc., and this is being fully investigated. It may require further management measures subsequently.

Mr. Bell

How long will surveillance be required for this from Wexford to County Louth? Will the Minister estimate what the cost of that is likely to be?

Dr. Woods

Surveillance and costs are related. Surveillance involves the efforts to find what happened and how it happened. Although it is more than three weeks since the last device was found surveillance will be continued in the meantime. I hope those discovered arose from one incident which might be the case as the devices tended to be washed up together.