THERE WERE heated exchanges in the Dáil yesterday about the Haulbowline toxic waste controversy as Opposition deputies from Cork claimed that questions they raised in the Dáil last week were not answered.
Simon Coveney (FG, Cork South Central) claimed that Minister of State Maire Hoctor misled the House in answering questions about the Haulbowline site and “the content of that site in terms of toxic and hazardous waste”.
He said it was “potentially the most serious environmental disaster the Government has had to deal with”.
“People are working only 200 to 300 yards from this site and must face the potential health consequences of dust blowing from it.”
David Stanton (FG, Cork East) said the Naval Service was located near the site, and asked “why is it being covered up”. Cancer levels “are very high in the harbour area”.
When Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny asked if there was a notice at Haulbowline to show it was safe, Ms Hoctor replied that “there is no notice because there is no health risk”.
Mr Kenny said the dumped materials “include mercury, lead, chromium six, zinc and PCBs”.
He said he did not want to see people accused of scaremongering over something that was potentially very serious.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore said the difficulty was that when questions were raised, the Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, was in Cork and went fundraising in Kerry later that day.
“We do not take corporate donations,” retorted Mr Gormley.
Mr Gilmore said a report was prepared in 2005 on the matter, was submitted to the department “but seems to have been buried”.
Kathleen Lynch (Labour, Cork North Central) said reports were carried out since 2004 and the Minister, “though he has inherited this problem, has access to them”.
Mr Gormley replied: “I inherited the problem from the Labour Party.”
Taoiseach Brian Cowen told the House the Department of the Environment’s remit was to “facilitate a thorough investigation of the site and to report to Government about it to allow for a Government decision on the future use of the site”.
He said “a contractor engaged in interim surface clearance works disturbed a quantity of hazardous material on the east tip. In defiance of instructions from the department the contractor persisted with unauthorised works and it ultimately became necessary to terminate his contract.”
