asked the Minister for Finance when the review of arterial drainage policy will be completed.
9.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Arterial Drainage.
8.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on the review of arterial drainage which has been carried out by the Office of Public Works.
10.
asked the Minister for Finance if any decision has been reached on the findings of the arterial drainage report which has been with him since May, 1984; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together.
The report on the review of arterial drainage policy, prepared by the Commissioners of Public Works, is under consideration by the Department of Finance prior to the submission of proposals to the Government. Pending a decision by the Government, it is not possible to state future policy on arterial drainage.
Can the Minister explain to me, if he has not yet received that report, how the Taoiseach could write to Cavan County Council one month ago telling them that the Erne catchment drainage scheme was of poor economic merit and then proceed to talk about its suspension?
The Erne scheme is included in the national list of arterial drainage being undertaken. It is a priority scheme. A scheme for the southern reaches of that catchment out from and through Belturbet into Upper Lough Erne was prepared by the commissioners as far back as 1970. It was not proceeded with at that time because its costing was considered uneconomic. The catchment as a whole was the subject of a comprehensive study carried out in 1979 prepared for the Governments of the Republic and the United Kingdom and carried out in collaboration with the European Communities. One of that study's recommendations was that the drainage scheme of this part of the catchment should be undertaken. The House should remember that that was a recommendation only. Since then, with the resources available, it has not been found possible to proceed further.
I am aware of all of that because I have been actively engaged in it over the past ten years.
I know that.
Actually there were three surveys carried out in that region concerning the drainage of the Erne catchment. The purpose in each case was economic development, North and South, relating to agriculture and tourist development. That was accepted by Ministers, North and South, by the British Minister and was submitted to the EC Commission. We were told a month ago that it is now of poor economic merit. Who took that decision?
I think it is fair to say that the Government of 1970 took that decision.
They did not.
Indeed they did and it was found to be uneconomic at that time. I want to make that quite clear.
There were no cross-Border projects of the EC in operation at that time.
Is the Deputy asking a question? I acknowledge that, but what I am saying is that, in my opinion, it is still of uneconomic merit as it was in 1970.
There are support funds available now——
When this joint study was carried out there was a recommendation in this instance and they approved certain cross-Border schemes.
Yes, the Blackwater scheme.
However, that is vastly different from a recommendation. One scheme is now ready to start. By the criteria given by the Office of Public Works on the economic value of a scheme, there is nothing to prove that this is economic now. When it was examined in 1970 it was declared uneconomic and there is nothing to lead me to believe that anything has changed since then in spite of the recommendation. Having regard to existing commitments and pending the outcome of the review of arterial drainage, I cannot say when the possibility of carrying out such a scheme could even be considered. If there was plenty of money available——
There is no money available.
The Deputy indicated that there was plenty of money; it is a different story now.
The Minister claimed that this scheme could still be examined. Is he aware that the Taoiseach, in his letter to Cavan County Council, scuttled cross-Border development and, by doing so, made a mockery of the concept of the Forum——
That is not a relevant question.
The Fianna Fáil Government found that the scheme was uneconomic, so I do not think there is any hope of it being economic now.
I wish to raise the subject matter of Question No. 5 on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Does the Minister agree that one of the cost-benefit analysis criteria for arterial drainage is the productivity of the region in which the drainage has to be done? Does he also agree that it is singularly inappropriate to mention 1970, three years before we joined the EC? Does he realise that he is dealing with a dairying area as far as cost benefit analysis is concerned because we have shown the way in the area of productivity since then?
I am sure that there is validity in Deputy Wilson's remarks. However, I wish to point out that all these questions are about the review of arterial drainage and it was decided in October 1982 that arterial drainage should be reviewed. Note the date. The decision then was that a review of arterial drainage policy should be undertaken to ensure that satisfactory returns from investment in this area would be achieved. It was decided that a report should be prepared for submission to the Government. Those decisions were made by a Fianna Fáil Government in 1982——
Quite right.
It was a comprehensive and detailed review and will be before the Government in a matter of weeks. Considering that it is such an intricate review, it is quite an achievement. Nobody has a right to say it should not have been carried out——
Nobody is saying that. Are we to be reassured by the fact that almost two and a half years after the review was decided on by the previous Government it still has not reached the Government? In respect of all arterial drainage, could we have a decision from the Government in a reasonable period, say six months, which the Minister can then act upon?
I cannot give any such indication and the Deputy is well aware of that.
Will the priorities be changed from those already established, such as the Mulcaire and Suir rivers?
I am not discussing the review here.
The review is the subject of the question. Would the Minister give an assurance that the review procedure, which has been going on for almost two and a half years, will not be used as an excuse for delay?
That is argument.
The review was initiated by Deputy O'Kennedy's party when in Government and he is now complaining about it.
I am not complaining.