asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state the date on which an application for the drainage of the Mill Stream, Monasterevan, County Kildare, was lodged with his Department under the Land Project, and the date on which the application form was returned to the representative of the applicant with a request that he should obtain the signatures of the remaining riparian owners concerned.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Monasterevan (Kildare) Drainage Scheme.
32.
The position in regard to this application, and to a similar joint works application relating to another stream in the same area, was set out in my Department's letter of 23rd October to the Deputy. The case referred to in the Deputy's question, which was the subject of an application under the Land Project in 1958, proved to be a complicated one both technically and legally, as did the other similar case I have mentioned. Protracted investigations of the engineering and other aspects were necessary, and it was not, in fact, until within the past year that the investigations indicated that a workable scheme might be possible, subject to the position in regard to third parties presenting no insurmountable difficulties. At this stage, it was ascertained that some riparian owners had not signed the application form, which was, accordingly, returned to the representative of the applicants on 10th April, 1964, with a request that he should obtain the required signatures.
For one reason or another, this case has unavoidably dragged on for a very long time, and every effort will be made to bring it to finality as soon as the consent of all the riparian owners is received.
Does the Minister not think it would have been better if it had been included in the original reply to Deputy Crinion, as well as to me, that the application was originally submitted on 25th November, 1958, and was not returned to the representative until 10th April, 1964, because the phraseology of the letter, as issued by the Minister to Deputy Crinion and published by Deputy Crinion in the local newspapers, makes it appear that the delay was due to the people of Monasterevan, whereas in fact it was due to the investigations necessary in the Minister's Department and to which he has referred?
I agree that the delay was entirely due to the difficult technical and legal investigation which was necessary.
On behalf of Deputy Crinion, I accept the Minister's apology.