I understand the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications proposes to deal with the following Private Notice Questions together. I will call the Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions.
Private Notice Questions. - Galmoy (Kilkenny) Mining Development.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the reason a document was altered by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to materially change the conditions under which planning permission was granted by Kilkenny County Council to a company (details supplied) in County Kilkenny.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to state if a report prepared by a firm of Scottish consultants, and commissioned by the Geological Survey of Ireland as part of the planning process, in connection with the proposed mining development by Arcon Limited at Galmoy, was altered in his Department by the removal of a sentence regarding the safety of the planned tailings pond; if so, if he will state by whom and on whose authority the alteration was made; if copies of the original report were retrieved from Kilkenny County Council and replaced by the amended version; if he will agree to place all documents retained by his Department with regard to the planning application by Arcon in the Oireachtas Library and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, in relation to a planned mining development in County Kilkenny by a company, Arcon, he was instrumental in having an independent consultant's report altered, contrary to the advice of senior officials in his Department, relating to an environmental impact statement on the proposed mining operation and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take the three Private Notice Questions together.
The document in question was a report from a Scottish firm of consultants, RPS Cairns Limited, who assisted my Department in its examination of Arcon's planning application and environmental impact statement. Arcon's EIS and associated documentation were forwarded by Kilkenny County Council to my Department for comments in accordance with Regulation 18 (2) (d) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1990. As the House will know the Department is only one of many bodies which were part of a wide consultation process.
The report by RPS Cairns was incorporated as an appendix in my Department's response to Kilkenny County Council on Arcon's application. The Department endorsed the RPS Cairns report and forwarded a copy to the county council on 26 April 1993. In its conclusions on the matter of the proposed tailings site for the mine development the report by RPS Cairns stated as follows:
Tailings: One critical issue remains fully unresolved, namely the risk of dam failure due to the presence of karst features and the effects of dewatering beneath the impoundment.
Arcon has provided comprehensive design and survey data to support the proposed tailings site and design. However, it has not been demonstarted that the site proposed for the tailings impoundment is the optimum site in terms of the risk of dam failure. This is a significant issue which cannot be resolved by approprite planning conditions or regulatory requirement.
Following submission of the report to Kilkenny County Council the council contacted my Department to clarify the final sentence of the above conclusion. My Department considered the matter and, in the context of the whole report, concluded that the particular sentence in question was open to misinterpretation. The concerns which existed at that time about the proposed tailings site were fully addressed in section 6 of my Department's report to Kilkenny County Council and in section 3 of the RPS Cairns report.
It was the professional view of officials in my Department that the only thing the particular sentence conveyed was that the site chosen by Arcon had not been shown to be the optimum site. My Department's earlier interpretation was of course based on this logic. Therefore, no matter what conditions the county council put in a planning permission these conditions could not change this fact, that the site was not shown to be the optimum site. This of course in itself did not detract from the fundamental soundness of the project.
Officials of my Department, therefore, contacted RPS Cairns about the matter and in particular raised the interpretation which might, in isolation, be put on the sentence. My Department, however, made it absolutely clear to RPS Cairns that they were not being asked to alter their report nor to do anything which would be at variance in any way with their professional ethics. Given the construction which might, in isolation, be put on a sentence, RPS Cairns were asked if they wished to reconsider their report. RPS Cairns themselves decided voluntarily to delete the sentence and to submit an amended report which my Department then forwarded to Kilkenny County Council. They did so on the basis of a clear acknowledgement that the deletion of the sentence in question did not materially alter the report.
As the questions which have been raised centre on safety of the proposed tailings site, it would be appropriate for me to relate to this House how the matter was subsequently dealt with through the planning process. The planning process was originally begun in December 1990 and the environmental impact statement submitted was the most comprehensive one the Department has ever received in relation to a mining project. Planning permission for the Galmoy project was granted, subject to numerous stringent conditions, by Kilkenny County Council on 28 May 1993. That permission was subsequently the subject of a number of appeals both by the company, which appealed some of the conditions, and by third parties to An Bord Pleanála.
My Department made observations to An Bord Pleanála on the appeals which were lodged with it and, in the majority of cases, supported the county council's position. An Bord Pleanála held an oral public hearing in October 1993 into the appeals at which officials of my Department, assisted by RPS Cairns, actively participated. An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the project on 29 April 1994 which again was subject to numerous stringent conditions.
Those conditions included additional structural, precautionary and other measures relating to the proposed tailings pond, many of which were proposed either by the company or the consultants who assisted my Department. It was the view of our technical consultants that provided certain features and measures discussed by them at the oral hearing in October 1993 were adopted and executed by the company, the overall risk of dam failure at the proposed site in Galmoy would not be materially different for a similar dam at a non-karstic site.
In the event, not only were these additional measures fully catered for in the planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála for the project, but the board added a number of further conditions relating to the tailings impoundment such as the requirements for a double liner in the impoundment and the provision of a fail-safe berm to contain potential spillage of 25 per cent tailings capacity.
I am, therefore, completely satisfied that the planning authorities have, in the conditions attached to the planning permission, fully catered for the particular characteristics associated with the proposed site of the tailings impoundment. Under no circumstances would my Department issue a State mining licence for the project unless we were fully satisfied that this was the case and that the project would conform to the highest possible international standards.
Contrary to certain claims being made both inside and outside this House, the full account which I have now given about this matter clearly demonstrates that at no stage did I personally, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy or my officials, interfere in any way with the planning process in connection with this project. The record clearly shows that my Department dealt with the many complex and technical issues which arose in a totally objective manner. Indeed, on most of these issues, my officials found themselves supporting the county council's position in the interests of ensuring that the development was undertaken in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Deputies will know that the planning process culminating in a full Bord Pleanála hearing is a public and transparent one. Far from any alleged subversion of this process, my Department participated actively and professionally at all stages and facilitated a complete appraisal of the proposal. I am, therefore, happy to place my Department's full report to Kilkenny County Council in the Oireachtas Library.
At no stage was I personally involved in any of this process. However, the particular slant which was put on the issue raised by Deputy Hogan might be interpreted as a slur on the professional reputation of the officials in my Department and those in Kilkenny County Council. This would be totally unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to every other Member of this House. I am, therefore, in the light of my clarification asking the Deputy to withdraw his remarks.
In summary, therefore, it became clear that a possible misinterpretation of one of the conclusions in the Cairns report was not supported by the analysis of the body of the report and this conclusion would have been an unnecessary but possible obstacle to the granting of the planning permission if it were misinterpreted in isolation. The Department discussed the problem with Cairns who acknowledged the position and they withdrew this statement. To have jeopardised so many badly needed jobs on such a misinter pretation would have been a grave mistake.
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications is in the House to apologise for the second day in a row about matters pertaining to his Department and the role it played in materially altering a document——
That is outrageous.
That is disgraceful.
——that subsequently meant planning permission could be granted.
We must proceed by way of question.
Is the Minister aware that this sentence was altered in his Department? Is he aware that if it was not altered in the Cairns report planning permission could not be granted by Kilkenny County Council? Was he aware that the document by RPS Cairns was the final report on the EIS submitted by Arcon and that it passed through the Geological Survey of Ireland and his Department without comment until he was alerted by Kilkenny County Council that there was a problem in relation to the tailings pond? I put it to the Minister that he was fully aware of this serious matter when it was brought to his attention by Kilkenny County Council and that he took a hands-on approach in ensuring this material matter was changed which subsequently meant planning permission could be granted.
An attempt is obviously being made for the second day in a row to denigrate——
Tell the truth.
I have no problem telling the truth. For the second day in a row Deputy Hogan has suggested without substantiation, and under the privilege of the House, that I instigated, was involved in and took a hands-on approach in changing a consultants' report which he claims would have resulted in planning permission being refused had this not happened. I will repeat this one more time for Deputy Hogan. If he believes that to be true I ask him to repeat it outside the House, otherwise I will deem it to be an abuse of privilege.
The Minister has already admitted he was wrong.
Answer the question, Minister.
(Interruptions.)
Listen to the answer.
I will answer the question. A slur has now been cast on the officials as well as on me.
The same excuse as the Attorney General.
Deputy Hogan asked who in my Department altered the consultants' report. I am stating unequivocally that no one in my Department altered the RPS Cairns report. I refer the House to the statement I made that RPS Cairns voluntarily withdrew that part of the report following consultation and discussion. RPS Cairns will verify that if the Deputy bothers to ask them.
We know that.
They confirmed it verbally to my Department today. Those are the facts. The question put to me was if I, as Minister, had a hands on approach in changing or deleting a sentence in a report. I am saying clearly that neither I nor my Department participated in that. That will be verified by the authors of the report. I suggest to the Deputy that if he is not prepared to withdraw the remarks he made under the privilege of the House he should repeat them outside the House.
Be a man and withdraw the remarks.
Before I call Deputy Rabbitte I must note that allegations of a serious nature against an officeholder can only be made by substantive motion and not by innuendo as we have just heard across the floor of the House. It is appropriate that I make that comment at this time.
At whose direction was contact made with RPS Cairns and at whose request was that contact made? Who made the contact with RPS Cairns? The Minister said there would be a copy of his reply available but I have not received it.
I apologise for that. The reply will be available shortly.
My memory of what the Minister said is that he admitted what is at issue is a question of public safety.
Yes.
If it is, the Minister presumably admits that the excision of this sentence is critical. When the Minister says this was not the optimum site, is this not another way of saying the site which was chosen is at risk in terms of public safety?
Not at all.
I am willing to hear the answers just as I was yesterday. The Minister said, in summary, the conclusion of RPS Cairns is not supported by the body of the report. Is it not strange for professional consultants to carry out a substantive analysis the body of which does not support their own conclusion? How would there be a danger of it being viewed in isolation?
It was.
Surely the planning authority would look at the full report which the Minister said he appended as an appendix to the document he sent back from his Department. Surely the county council would look at the totality of the report and not just at one sentence in isolation.
Regarding the sentences I read out, the critical sentences are:
One critical issue remains fully unresolved, namely the risk of dam failure due to the presence of Karst features and the effects of dewatering beneath the impoundment.
Arcon has provided comprehensive design and survey data to support the proposed tailings site and design. However, it has not been demonstrated that the site proposed for the tailings impoundment is the optimum site in terms of the risk of dam failure. This is a significant issue which cannot be resolved by appropriate planning conditions or regulatory requirement.
In other words, the EIS upon which Cairns consultants were employed by us as statutory consultees and by the planning authority to assist in this, the biggest EIS in the history of mining, was based on the site chosen. One cannot put in place a planning permission procedure which will deal with a site selection issue. For example, one cannot apply for planning permission without designating the site and this site was deemed by the developers to be the best available.
When Cairns examined all the data available to them they stated that the issue of the site selection could not be dealt with by way of a planning permission procedure. However, this does not suggest that the site was unsuitable and would not, even with proper conditions attached, be capable of dealing with the tailings residue from the mine. In an overall context, there is no question of my Department issuing a State mining licence to any company before first insisting on proper safety standards and that the project meets the highest international practice.
One could interpret the sentence as meaning that the project was incapable of proceeding. That was not the case and the interpretation was wrong. It was a non-sequitur in terms of what had preceded it in the report. Following consideration of the matter by Kilkenny County Council and discussions between the senior geological staff in my Department with technical and professional expertise and Cairns about a possible interpretation, it agreed that it was not a correct interpretation and they had no problem deleting the sentence to avoid such an interpretation. They can, and will, verify that this is the case. This morning when the issue was raised I checked that this was the case. The facts confirm that the consultants, the people who issued the report and its authors, had no problem with the deletion of that sentence from the amended report as it did not take away from the central thrust of what they were doing. Those are the circumstances surrounding its deletion.
I want to again point out to Deputy Hogan that nobody in my Department deleted anything from the report. To my knowledge, no public official would even consider doing such a thing.
A Deputy
who asked them to do so?
This was not done as a result of any political direction by me. It may be all right to make statements here so that they will be picked up by the media which will give a certain impression to the public, but there is no evidence to support this allegation, it did not happen, the people who were consulted were proper technical and professional staff and there was no involvement by us in regard to these detailed and complex matters. The professional ethics of Cairns, of the Department and of the Kilkenny county manager are being called into question as a result of the Deputy's suggestion that the county manager, as head of the planning authority, was prepared to countenance a proposal which was in some way wrong or not agreed by the consultants. That is the logic of the Deputy's case.
The Minister's logic.
Not only is the Deputy questioning my political integrity——
What about the county manager——
No amount of shouting will get away from the fact——
(Interruptions.)
Obfuscation.
Not only has the Deputy questioned my political integrity but he specifically asked who in my Department altered the report. Nobody in my Department did, the authors of the report altered it. Is the Deputy prepared to withdraw his supplementary which implies that I was involved? The Deputy should be man enough to withdraw his question.
Who asked them to delete the sentence?
Bring back Jim, he will fix it.
Bring back Goodman.
The points made are very disturbing and have very serious implications — it is clear there was gross interference in the planning process.
By whom?
I will deal with that point in a moment. The Minister should not get excited.
(Interruptions.)
Let us hear the Deputy, please.
It is clear that the manager of Kilkenny County Council, as a member of the Health and Safety Authority, would have been aware when he saw the initial Cairns report that there were safety implications and a danger to public health and safety of those who might work in the mine. For those reasons alone, the planning application should have been rejected. Was this matter ever referred to the Minister's private office or to the private office of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy? Did the Minister or his private secretary discuss this matter with the secretary of his Department on any occasion? Did he meet Mr. Donnelly, the manager of Kilkenny County Council and discuss with him the planning application by Arcon?
To take the third question first, I never met Mr. Donnelly in his capacity as county manager in regard to this matter and I certainly never discussed this issue with him. As I said in my statement yesterday, of course I am kept abreast of the progress made on all matters in the Department and certain matters are dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, under his delegated functions. I was not involved in the detailed technical assessments in regard to this matter as I have no function or expertise in this area. I reiterate that there was no interference by me, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, or anybody in my Department in the proper discretionary functions available to the county manager or the planning officials in Kilkenny County Council who deal with the planning authority. We are statutory consultees in this matter, as are others, and we are seeking to assist the planning authority through the provision of technical and other data so that the largest EIS ever to come before a local authority on a mining project is dealt with adequately, with full information available. That is the clear position.
To suggest that a planning authority would deny itself proper discretion under the law or do so under direction gives a very low opinion of the people in Kilkenny County Council and the professional staff in my Department dealing with this matter.
Why was the sentence deleted?
Those are the facts. I was careful at all times to ensure that I could not be accused, as suggested by Deputy Hogan, of being directly involved in this planning application. I have no such function in the matter and if the Deputy is suggesting that his allegations are true — I presume he would not make them unless he thought they were true, even though he has no evidence——
The Minister apologised to the Dáil——
——then he is voicing a vote of no confidence in his county manager, quite apart from the slur he casts on my officials.
On a point of order, Deputy Harney referred to the county manager by name. This is not normally done in the case of someone who has given long public service and, in fairness, the decorum of the House should be maintained in such matters.
On a point of order, I have no problem in referring to him as the county manager.
I assure the House that I have the highest respect for the integrity of the officials of Kilkenny County Council.
What about the Department?
What about the documents the Deputy is peddling?
The Deputy in possession, without interruption, please.
I have great confidence in the officials of the Department also.
What about the documents he is peddling?
Let us hear the Deputy without interruption. We must be brief at this stage.
The officials of Kilkenny County Council were so diligent in dealing with this planning application that they brought to the attention of the Department the sentence dealing with the tailings pond. I restate——
This is not a time for quotations.
I had to listen to the Minister's detailed statement.
Please, Deputy, we must proceed by way of question at this stage.
Kilkenny County Council officials brought to the attention of the Department the significance of the issue, which could not be resolved by appropriate planning conditions or regulatory requirements——
What is——
They were referring to the siting of the tailings pond referred to in the original report which was altered.
Which the Deputy has not yet seen.
The Deputy in possession without interruption, please.
The Minister did not show it.
I will place it in the Oireachtas Library.
I want to praise the Arcon officials. The Arcon company made significant——
This is not a time for statements.
I will ask a question.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is now under contract.
Arcon, a fine company, changed its plans substantially in relation to the tailings pond issue during the Bord Pleanála hearing. Why would it do so had it not been brought to its attention that the tailings pond site was flawed? The Minister, and his officials, were keen to ensure that the RPS Cairns report was altered in order to push through a flawed planning application.
This is a disgrace.
It happened.
The Minister is in charge of his Department. He stated that officials in his Department contacted RPS Cairns in order to influence the outcome of a report by deleting this particular sentence. The Minister must admit that as head of his Department he is responsible for whatever action his officials take. I am convinced that the precise reason this sentence was deleted was that Arcon could not be granted planning permission by Kilkenny County Council until that had been removed. It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that this sentence was insignificant and trivial. This sentence was at the core of granting planning permission to Arcon to carry out its mining activity. The Minister should admit it and say he and his Department took a keen interest in ensuring that RPS Cairns changed their report to allow the development to take place. Subsequently, Arcon, with huge financial resources, during the Bord Pleanála hearing were good enough to change their plans to ensure we had a safe mine in north Kilkenny.
Of course, as the planning permission process goes through from Kilkenny County Council to An Bord Pleanála in terms of submissions and appeals changes will be made to ensure the safety issue is dealt with. The Deputy is suggesting one of two things, first that RPS Cairns acted unethically by deleting a sentence and in a way that affected the integrity of their report.
The Minister asked them to do it.
The position is that if they did not do so voluntarily they acted unethically; if they did it voluntarily and they stand over it, it stands. What I am saying is that an interpretation could be put on that sentence, as the Deputy is doing, which would mean it would be impossible to obtain planning permission as a result. Neither the Deputy nor I decide planning applications. They are decided by the planning authority, Kilkenny County Council. Kilkenny County Council made that decision in consultation with the statutory consultees, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and others. RPS Cairns submitted their report without that sentence so as to ensure there would be no misunderstanding as to their position in terms of the analysis of the report. If the Deputy does not agree with that he is implying that either Kilkenny County Council or RPS Cairns was wrong——
(Interruptions.)
——because Kilkenny County Council made the final decision in relation to the planning application or RPS Cairns were wrong and should not have deleted the sentence.
The Minister is shifting the emphasis.
The bottom line is that the central argument does not stand. We did not delete anything. It was done voluntarily by the consultants without duress from us or anyone else. RPS Cairns will verify that and I am sure Kilkenny County Council will verify the position also.
Why was it included in in the first place?
We must conclude this business.
Will the Minister agree that the bottom line is that the document was altered? Why was it altered?
It was withdrawn.
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications is doing a very good job. If the Labour Party want to look at the files I am sure it can do so later.
How does the Minister know it was withdrawn? The Minister should not be drawn in on the issue.
Deputy Rabbitte without interruption from any side of the House.
If this is reduced to a question of why was it altered, will the Minister agree that the report was altered because Kilkenny County Council, as the planning authority, could not grant planning permission while the sentence, which is the subject of this controversy, was in the report? Therefore, presumably, somebody in Kilkenny County Council made contact with his Department. Who made that contact? Whose idea was it to contact RPS Cairns to negotiate the excision of the offending sentence? Who made the contact with RPS Cairns and at whose request?
That question has been asked before but we did not get the answer.
At whose direction were the original copies of the report collected? Who caused that to be done and what was its purpose?
As the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, said, it was withdrawn.
Would it have made more sense and would not the man in the street expect a firm of professional consultants to rewrite the paragraph to which the Minister adverted in the statement, which has not yet arrived? The public cannot have confidence in the planning process if a firm of professional consultants put in a sentence which has such material effect on public safety and are prepared to withdraw it if somebody contacts them by telephone asking them to do so. How is it at variance with the body of the report? How should professional consultants reach a conclusion that is at variance with the body of the report? I have asked a number of questions but it is important that they are clarified. The Minister said it was not a matter for the planning process to deal with the question of siting.
I will have to check the record but I do not recall saying that.
Let me put the question in another way. The way of dealing with the site was to refuse planning permission. If planning permission had been refused then we would have sited the tailings pond elsewhere. Planning permission would have had to be refused if the sentence had not been deleted, and, therefore, the tailings pond would have been located elsewhere.
No.
The planning permission being granted with more stringent conditions added on by An Bord Pleanála, as a result of a full oral hearing, is in relation to this site. In other words, this site is not unsuitable for a tailings pond. The suitability of the site is established by the planners. The Deputy said the report was altered. The consultants voluntarily agreed, in order to avoid an improper interpretation being put on what they had written, in relation to the site——
They had to have the answer.
(Interruptions.)
I did not realise Deputy McCormack was an expert on mining.
It is no wonder it is called Cowen gate.
Cow & Gate is usually fed to children.
The Minister is closing the gate when the horse has bolted.
The Minister has not answered the question.
I was seeking to answer it until I was interrupted by the Deputy's eminent backbencher who is showing an IQ of six. The position is that the report was voluntarily amended by the consultants and it does not affect the body of the report. As statutory consultees in the Department we were in a position, through the senior geological officer, to put that to them to avoid misinterpretation when the planning authority was dealing with his submission and a whole range of others. RPS Cairns had no problem in doing that. As I understand it RPS Cairns verified that with my Department. That is the position. If that is the case why the continuous refusal by Deputy Hogan to withdraw his remark which impugns the integrity of the officials of my Department, for which there is no evidence. Verification of the true position can be given by RPS Cairns and Kilkenny County Council. The public officials serving this country are entitled to clarification on that point from the Deputy.
Who sent the report back from Kilkenny County Council? Did the Minister discuss this matter with the Secretary of his Department?
I cannot tell the Deputy the name of the person in Kilkenny County Council who sent back the report. It was sent to Kilkenny County Council and subsequently returned. I speak to the Secretary of my Department practically every day of the week.
I am referring to this issue.
Of course the Arcon planning application would have been discussed.
We discuss it at management level every week.
Did the Minister discuss the change in the Cairns report?
No, I have not discussed that with the Secretary.
Was the Minister aware the report had come back from Kilkenny County Council?
I outlined the position to the Deputy. I was not involved in the detailed technical assessments. They were dealt with by the appropriate staff in the Department and I will not accept any insinuation in that regard.
I must bring this matter to a conclusion. I will take questions from two Deputies who have been offering, namely, Deputies Bruton and McManus.
Why did the Minister's Department consider that Kilkenny County Council, as the planning authority, would not be able to reach its own decision on the validity, ambiguity or otherwise, of the relevant sentence without his Department having to contact the consultants to ask them to reconsider it? By making that request of Cairns, did the Minister and his Department not indicate they lacked confidence in Kilkenny County Council's accountability to make such an assessment without the report being changed?
Furthermore, who in the Minister's Department contacted Cairns to ask them to reconsider the report? Have Cairns been paid for the report by the Minister's Department? If so, how much? Will the Minister state categorically that at no stage was he briefed about the transactions with Cairns by his Secretary? If he was not briefed by his secretary about those matters, in view of their importance in terms of industrial safety, does he consider his Secretary was not doing his job correctly in ensuring that the Minister or the Minister of State was apprised of important matters which could affect the lives of those working in the mine at a future date?
It is not true that we did not have confidence in Kilkenny County Council to deal with this matter. In matters such as this we are the statutory consultees, we assist in every way possible in ensuring the planning authority has full information so that it can make an informed decision and that discretionary power remains with the planning authority. Under statute it may consult us on matters such as this. The level of expertise required in a local authority to deal with a planning application like this necessitates that type of consultation and it is in order.
Why did the Minister need to change the sentence?
I am attempting to answer the Deputy's questions in sequence. His next question related to an interpretation that may be put on a sentence. The sentence required clarification so that Kilkenny County Council would be clear in its understanding of the consultant's report on the issue. Clarification was given and interpretation of the sentence did not pose a problem for the Department. Neither we nor RPS Cairns believe that the interpretation of the words in the sentence would mean a rejection of a planning permission was imminent if it remained. The departmental official involved in the discussions had the technical and professional expertise to discuss the matter with RPS Cairns consultants who confirmed that the Department's interpretation of the matter was in line with their thinking. RPS Cairns were asked to amend the report to avoid a different interpretation being put on it and they had no problem in doing so. The report came back and an amended one was submitted. Cairns can verify that position and there is no question of a breach of the integrity of the planning process in that regard. The ultimate discretionary power for a decision in respect of the planning permission remained in its proper place, with the planning authority.
I am regularly briefed by the Secretary and other senior officials in my Department. I met a team of officials on a number of occasions to discuss this matter. In regard to technical issues such as this, at all times I abide by the professional advice I receive and did not at any time——
Was the Minister aware of this matter?
I am answering the question. At no time was I involved in giving direction in respect of this matter.
Was the Minister aware of it?
The matter was dealt with by competent staff in my Department.
What about the cost?
The Minister stated this was a public document. Will he agree that if a finalised report can subsequently be altered it has serious implications for EIS procedure and public confidence? The public paid for this documentation. Surely the Department should have left the document as it stood. If we accept what the Minister said as proper procedure, documentation relating to EIS in the future can be altered after it is finalised.
While I accept that the odds of the failure of a dam at a tailings pond are low, is the Minister aware that there was a collapse of such a dam connected to a mine in South Africa subsequent to granting this planning permission? That highlights the serious nature of what we are discussing. It is unfortunate the Minister is defensive on this matter.
I am not being defensive.
This has major implications for planning procedure and the protection of the public good in all planning applications. Will the Minister comment on the fact that there is a divergence of expert opinion regarding whether the site was an active or an inactive system? That has caused some concern, particularly because one of the weaknesses in terms of the EIS was that while they referred to alternative sites none was fully explored. At the time this matter arose, was the Minister or the Secretary of the Department involved in seeking a change from the consultants? Is the Minister saying that the senior official in his Department took this initiative?
I am saying that the senior official in my Department is the proper person to do it, that he was the guy who was requested by Kilkenny County Council to obtain a proper assessment of the interpretation to be put on these issues. We had appointed the consultants. The consultants were assisting us and Kilkenny County Council. We sought that clarification from RPS Cairns. RPS Cairns will confirm that they voluntarily amended the sentence, which does not change the thrust of their report. If one is saying it does, one is saying that they are acting unethically, that they are prepared to change their report on instruction from someone else. That did not happen. The main thrust of the report remains.
With regard to the other point the Deputy made about a tailings pond this site has been subjected to the most rigorous, proper planning process thus far. At this stage it is up to the Mining Board. The site has been deemed to be suitable subject to stringent conditions. It is a suitable site as far as the planning authorities are concerned. It is not for me or any other Member of the House to decide. It has been decided by the independent planning authority itself.
In regard to what happened in South Africa. I would not be familiar with individual circumstances there. Regarding the planning process in this country, as far as my Department and the officials who work in this area are concerned, the question of safety is of absolute, primary importance. That consideration remains of primary importance, in this as in every other similar type application submitted to my Department.
As I have already said, the person who dealt with this matter and with the RPS Cairns people on this issue, was the competent, proper person to do so. He acted totally properly, got clarification——
——on his own direction?
Obviously, Kilkenny County Council would have requested that this clarification be sought to ascertain its meaning. There is nothing untoward about that. I am saying that the Department are statutory consultees, that Kilkenny County Council has spoken to my Department officials who are competent in this matter in a whole range of areas. This is a most complex planning application.
It is straightforward. The Minister is making it complex.
I can answer the question. No such political direction came from me. I was not involved. I am clearly stating that for the tenth or eleventh time.
Was the Minister aware of it?
If Deputy Hogan is not prepared to withdraw the allegation in relation to me, he should withdraw it in relation to my officials.