asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason for the prolonged delay in making public the report by An Foras Forbartha on the siting of oil refineries.
17.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Oil Refineries Siting.
16.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce why he did not release the report by An Foras Forbartha on possible sites for oil refineries until approximately six months after he received it and when the planning appeal regarding the siting of a refinery in Dublin Bay had been underway for some time.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 16 and 17 together.
The completed report "A Study of Suitable Coastal Locations for Oil Refineries in Ireland" was formally submitted to me by An Foras Forbartha on 17th November, 1975. The report was commissioned by me and was intended as a guide for me and the Government. It was not envisaged as a document to be published. However, when it became known to me that some parties to the Dublin Bay oil refinery appeal by Aquarius Securities Ltd. considered it of relevance to the appeal I indicated that I had no objection to the making available of the report to that appeal.
I have since arranged, as I indicated on 10th February in the Dáil, to make copies of the report—excluding certain confidential material—available to Members of the Oireachtas and to lay the report before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In the circumstances, I do not accept that there is any question of delay in making public this report.
In view of the fact that this report was leaked to the Press and relevant extracts from it appeared in the Evening Press on the night before the “7 Days” programme on the Dublin Bay oil refinery what was the Minister's purpose in withholding it for over two months and then releasing it on the 11th day of the hearing of the appeal to which it is alleged at any rate to have some relevance?
I am not responsible for the leaks which occurred. I think they are very deplorable. The report was commissioned long before there was a question of appeal in regard to the Dublin Bay oil refinery. It was not commissioned in relation to Dublin Bay but to the whole of our coast line. The report contained confidential information and was not intended for publication because I believe it would precipitate speculation to have it published in full. We have extracted some material from it but even so it may precipitate speculation. It also is important to recall that although there were very serious leaks nothing like the full amount was leaked. Immediately it was conveyed to me that it ought to be made available to the inquiry I indicated that I had no objection to making it available, but it was not my role as Minister for Industry and Commerce to make it available. I simply released it to be given to the inquiry if they so wished.
Is the Minister aware that there were requests at the beginning of the inquiry for its publication? Why did he wait until the 11th day to do it?
I have to say that like anybody else I saw newspaper reports but no request was made to me that publication be made. People may say one thing in a public place but no request came to me. Immediately the request came to me I released it. I have no position pro or contra either in the use of the report or in the findings of the enquiry. I just want a good technical answer. I want the best technical answer.
Question No. 18.
From whom did the request come?
The request was conveyed to me by the Department of Local Government.
In view of the fact that the report is estimated to have cost £40,000 is the Minister satisfied with the contents of it, especially as it admits in some instances that it had inadequate data and in other instances that it had no data at all? The report also admits that most of its findings were based on assumptions and guess estimates. Is the Minister satisfied that the £40,000 involved is well spent in view of these admitted inadequacies by the report?
This is an entirely different question, which asks for an expression of opinion on my part which does not arise out of the two questions I am answering.
It is a matter of £40,000 expended on an important storage location for an oil refinery. Is the Minister saying that the operational costs of the refinery have any reference whatever?
As I said, the scope of his question is out of all proportion. If the Deputy puts down the appropriate questions so that I can have them properly researched and answered I will be happy to do so, but I cannot offer opinions of this kind arising from the sort of questions which relate to times and alleged delays.
First it has been stated that this report was leaked to the Press and, secondly, the Minister is not going to publish the full report. He is going to publish a report which has been censored by himself. This casts considerable doubt on the whole matter. Would the Minister, by any means at his disposal, make a public statement on this matter apart from his answers here this evening to try to dispel the doubts and suspicions around this matter? Also as Deputies O'Malley and Barrett said, regarding the delay in issuing this report, had it been circulated earlier it might well have saved days of hearing at the inquiry and also a lot of money. Will this report influence the Minister for Local Government in turning down the appeal?
It must be obvious to the Deputy that his last two supplementaries are not appropriate to me and that I cannot answer and it would not be correct for me to do so. In regard to any disquiet that has arisen I have said that copies of the report, excluding certain confidential material, have been made available to Deputies and to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I want to take this opportunity to assure people that that was in no sense a censoring of the report by me. I have neither wish nor reason for so doing. Remember the report was not carried out for publication, although once the issue arose I thought it proper to have the report published. It would ruin the possibility of having serious investigation of this sort in public in future if material which was obtained confidentially was then published. The only restriction is in one specific area where the material was confidentially obtained and where I am advised on technical grounds it would be contrary to public interest to publish it. There was no intention to censor it.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.