Vol. 502 No. 5
8 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the final number and location of explosive devices washed ashore on beaches on the east coast; if he has satisfied himself that this situation has ended; the cost of this operation; who paid the costs; the outcome of discussions with the British Government in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7719/99]
I advised the House on 4 November 1998 that 29 devices in all were washed ashore on the east coast between 3 June 1998 and 19 July 1998. I have had details regarding these incidents tabulated with a map appended, and I will supply a copy to the Deputy. I am not aware of any further devices having been washed ashore in the jurisdiction. The Irish Marine Emergency Service of my Department, IMES, has, however, been notified by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment of five devices having been washed ashore earlier this month on Belfast Lough near Bangor and the Antrim coast near Larne.
I outlined to the House on 4 November 1998 the manner in which I responded to these incidents, by raising the matter both directly with the UK Government and at international level. Contact is being maintained at official level with the UK Government and a general review of the issue will take place at a meeting with the UK authorities planned for Dublin in the near future.
The IMES considers the actions which were undertaken arising out these incidents to be normal operating functions and they were, accordingly, not costed separately. I understand the Garda and Army take a similar view. I am advised that expenses incurred by Civil Defence volunteers are met by the local authorities concerned.
I am glad about that because, as the Minister will remember, there was a great deal of controversy about that matter from Wexford to Carlingford Lough. Does the Minister agree it seems somewhat unfair that local authorities, which are hard pressed for funds, had to pay for the supervision of beaches from Wexford to Carlingford because of explosive devices left at sea by the British following World War I, while the British got away scot-free? Does the Minister agree that was grossly unfair and set a bad precedent for similar happenings in the future?
A great deal of the work was done by the Irish Marine Emergency Service through the coastal unit volunteers who patrol the coasts. They and the Civil Defence repeatedly patrolled the coast for quite some time. The main cost incurred was the cost of the manpower and womanpower involved in patrolling and the cost of the experts from my Department. It came within the normal Irish Marine Emergency Service costs. The Irish Marine Emergency Service is used to co-operating with the British across the Irish Sea on many of these issues. No charge is ever laid for that co-operation.
In this event, our main concern is that such incidents stop and that the cause is identified. Substantial studies have been undertaken since then of Beaufort Dyke by the British at their expense. They have made that information available to our experts. The report will deal with that.
Deputy Finucane mentioned the report on dumping in the Irish Sea. That report was delayed by two elements, one of which was the introduction of extra material. There have been reports from men working on vessels who claimed certain matters were dumped. There was great difficulty in locating the factual information about that, which took a considerable amount of time. The important aspect is to get it sorted out so that it does not recur. It has recurred in Northern Ireland but not in our jurisdiction.
When I raised this matter with the Minister on a previous occasion and, subsequently, when he raised it at OSPAR level, I asked if the British indicated why these munitions, which had been there for many years, had been disturbed and washed ashore. Was the cause ever established?
That is being investigated. They did not have any simple or immediate answer for it. The devices were to have been deposited very deep in the dyke. It appears that some were not in the dyke but were on the slopes into it or outside the entrance and they were moved by the movement of the seas over a long period. That is being investigated to see how it happened. It also relates to what the merchant seamen said because they claimed some of the dumping was done short of the target to save fuel and time. That is being investigated as fully as possible and will be included in the report.
Some 39 devices were washed up during the summer months—
There were 29.
When this matter was raised previously the Minister indicated there would be a thorough investigation. He has stated that the British Government has carried out investigations into Beaufort Dyke. Has it been established how many of these explosive phosphorous devices are still down there? There may be a repeat of this in the summer months if that sort of turbulence happens again. Is the Minister satisfied that it has, to use his own word, stopped?
There was some quantification of the known deposits. A parliamentary question was asked on that subject at some stage. The problem is that if they went right down they stayed down, but it appears they did not all go deep into the dyke. That is the difficulty and the British were upset because what was supposed to go into the dyke may not have. More phosphor ous devices washed up in Northern Ireland last month.
Therefore, it could happen again.
Yes, we must be vigilant. I assure the Deputy that this issue was raised at the OSPAR meeting. Ireland was asked to take the lead and look more generally at the issue of dumping and OSPAR will take an interest in it. That at least brings a multinational focus to it and the study is currently being carried out.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
