Vol. 471 No. 5
15 Mr. Dempsey asked the Minister for the Environment his views on whether the health and safety criteria can be met in relation to future engineering developments at Mutton Island, County Galway, and if he will give details of all discussions held between his Department and Seghers Engineering. [21303/96]
16 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for the Environment if he has received a response in respect of his request to Galway Corporation to consider inviting tenders for the design, construction and operation of an underground sewage treatment plant at Mutton Island, County Galway; the assistance available in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21176/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.
The Minister invited Galway Corporation last month to consider the option of a treatment plant based on alternative technology that would allow the facilities to be built underground on Mutton Island and eliminate the need for a permanent causeway. The only response to date was a letter requesting that "technical reports and costings available to the Minister" be also made available to members of the city council. A reply issued to that letter from my Department on 31 October. This indicated that the advice available to the Minister is that use of alternative technology has permitted plants to be located underground in other cities where particular circumstances point to such a solution. The letter also pointed out that use of different technology in the handling of sludge could obviate the need for a permanent causeway. The letter stressed that the Minister's suggestions were not based on any particular technological solution and that he had not suggested that the corporation should adopt any particular company's proposals or technology.
In these circumstances it is for the corporation itself to obtain its own professional and technical advice on the different options available, if the alternative approach suggested by the Minister is to be pursued. It is now a matter for the corporation to decide whether it wishes to investigate fully and pursue the option suggested by the Minister. In order to obtain tenders from contractors for a design, build and operate project, the corporation would first have to appoint specialist consultants as client's representatives. They have been assured that my Department will co-operate in every way possible in securing an early appointment of consultants.
Seghers Engineering NV submitted a study to the Department on the feasibility of providing a waste water treatment plant underground on Mutton Island. Issues and queries arising from this were the subject of a number of discussions with the company at official level.
There are generally recognised principles governing the health and safety issues which arise in the construction and operation of a treatment works. These would have to be fully reflected in the technical documentation submitted to the Department in due course for any alternative scheme at Mutton Island.
The reply of the Minister of State is extremely interesting. It appears the Minister for the Environment proposed an option of alternative technology to Galway Corporation without having considered its technical details. Is it true that the option put forward, for political reasons, by the Minister was rejected by the technical people in his Department? Was he told it is not a feasible option? The cost originally submitted for the project by Seghers Engineering in April 1996 was £11.34 million and in August 1996 that was revised to £23 million. The latest information available to Galway Corporation is that the project will cost £35 million and considerably more to operate than the original proposal considered by the corporation. Is the Minister of State saying the Minister proposed an option to Galway Corporation without researching it? That appears to be the case from her reply. I want a specific answer as to whether the technical people in the Department rejected this option before the Minister wrote to the Corporation. The Minister of State should be careful in answering that.
There may be some confusion about the matter. The Minister did not recommend a specific option to Galway Corporation. He suggested that the corporation might consider alternative technology, already in use elsewhere, for the project. The Minister did not recommend a specific alternative technology or system. In an effort to resolve this extremely difficult problem, he suggested that the corporation might consider examining alternative technologies, not for the site, but for dealing with the sewage and that if it did adopt such an approach he would assist it by designating consultants as swiftly as possible. It would be the job of the consultants, not the Minister, to assess the possibility of alternative systems, under the guidance of the corporation. The Minister was trying to assist the corporation by making this suggestion. It is important to clarify what was proposed. The Minister did not propose a specific alternative to what is already on the table.
Will the Minister of State answer the specific question I asked twice? Is it true the technical people in the Department of the Environment advised against recommending this system? Is it true they disowned the system and that the proposal, for political reasons, is being put forward by political advisers to the Ministers for the Environment and Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht? If the Minister did not make specific recommendations about Seghers Engineering, why has it set up a branch in Galway in anticipation of the tender being put forward?
It is beyond my capability to say why a private company would set up a subsidiary anywhere in the world, not to mention Galway. The Minister suggested an approach the corporation could adopt to resolve this problem. He did not assess a particular system. In his response to Galway Corporation, he suggested an approach for it to consider and on which to seek expert advice. The corporation must make decisions about the ongoing maintenance and health and safety factors involved in such major infrastructural developments. Those matters must be considered fully and comprehensively using expert advice provided by the corporation.
It is disappointing that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, who has been closely associated with this sad, sorry and expensive saga, is not here to answer these questions. May I take it from the earlier replies of the Minister of State that neither the Minister nor his Department had information on the likely costings of providing the sewerage scheme underground, without a causeway to Mutton Island? Even though he did not have such information he made an announcement rescinding his earlier decision to proceed with the scheme and stated he would not fund a causeway to Mutton Island. Is the Minister indicating that that decision is also rescinded and that he intends to provide funds for the causeway?
To be helpful to the Deputies, perhaps I could refer to——
I do not want a history of the matter.
I will not give a history. I am sure the Minister regrets he is unable to be here, he is away on EU business. If I could refer briefly to the letter sent by the Minister to Galway Corporation——
My question relates to the costing and funding of the causeway.
The question tabled on the Order Paper does not relate to the costing of the causeway. I have been asked to comment on the proposal the Minister made to Galway Corporation about an approach adopting——
The words "assistance available" are in my question. Is there assistance available for the causeway?
The Minister has given a clear commitment to provide funding for the project. I wish the Deputy and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would give me a chance to respond to this matter. He sent a letter to Galway Corporation to assist it with a project which is causing it great difficulty.
It is the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, who has the difficulty.
The Minister did not say funding will be withdrawn. I will read the item that explains the approach outlined, which does not——
I want information about the causeway.
Let us hear the reply of the Minister of State. The question has been put.
The Minister's proposal for a treatment plant, based on alternative technology, was prompted by his concern at the increasing difficulties which the corporation's existing proposals had run into and which have the potential to delay the project indefinitely. The Minister suggests the alternative approach, which he asked the corporation to consider, would meet the principal objections to the existing proposals, while securing the provision of a treatment plant in the shortest possible time. The advice available to the Minister is that the use of alternative technology has permitted plans to be used elsewhere. It offers the corporation the possibility to consider alternatives. The Minister has made it clear he is extremely concerned about the ongoing pollution problems in Galway Bay, that he is committed to the project, including the causeway, and that he will provide an alternative approach should the corporation choose to adopt it.
I asked a question but I did not get an answer. The Minister does not seem to be properly briefed and is answering questions without knowing the facts. She said the Minister is committed to the provision of a causeway.
I said "project".
Apart from making that comment, the Minister did not answer my question. When the Minister announced he would not go ahead with the approved scheme, he stated he would not provide funding for the construction of the causeway. Has that position changed?
It is a pity the Deputy did not include this in his Question——
It is in the Question.
——because it is extremely difficult to answer questions which are not on the Order Paper, no matter how well briefed I am. The Minister has suggested to the corporation that it should consider the alternatives which have been tried elsewhere and which may be of use in relation to this sewage plant. The Deputy's question extends beyond the Question on the Order Paper. I will provide him with further information if he requires it, but he must accept that the Question on the Order Paper relates to the corporation's ongoing problem and the Minister's response to that.
The letter from the Minister to the corporation mentions the Minister's proposal and the Minister's suggestion. Deputy Molloy was right when he said the Minister told the corporation it could not go ahead with the approved project and it should consider the alternative. Perhaps the Minister, who is extremely well briefed, might answer the second part of my question, that is, if he will give details of all the discussions between his Department and Seghers Engineering.
As regards the second part of the Deputy's question, it is important to make it clear that the Minister is not proposing an alternative system.
The letter mentions the Minister's proposal.
Let us hear the reply.
I am in danger of repeating myself. The Minister proposes that alternative methods should be considered. That does not mean there is an option on the table, whether it is Seghers Engineering or anyone else. He suggests that alternative technologies, which may help to resolve the problem in Galway, should be considered. It is wrong for anyone to believe the Minister has given a commitment in this regard. The Minister has not met Seghers Engineering. Discussions took place in the Department but these will not have any influence on the corporation's position should it adopt this approach. It is important to separate the two issues because there is confusion, which I hope is not deliberately created. The Minister has not met this company and does not recommend that its system should be adopted by the corporation. He recommends that the corporation should assess the alternatives.
I do not want to put words in the Minister's mouth but I am sure the city engineer, members of Galway Corporation and the consultants it employed to examine this matter will find insulting the Minister's insinuations that they did not look at alternatives to resolve this issue. She said the Minister for the Environment did not meet this company. Did any other Minister meet this company or its representatives at home or abroad in the past six months?
I am not in a position to say whether other Ministers met this company or its representatives. The Deputy should ask them. It is wrong to suggest that we underestimate the capability of any local authority to carry out such an assessment. That is not the Minister's intention or mine when responding to these questions. We must understand that technology is making advances all the time.
These people do not know about them.
We must ensure we are up to date in this area because it is an extremely complex and expensive business.
It is only a sewage plant.
I do not believe an engineer or a consultant working for a local authority would take offence at being encouraged to look at alternatives which may be used in Ireland. Technology is advancing all the time and we must stay on top of such developments.
The Minister insults the corporation by saying it did not consider that.
This is one of the saddest days I have spent in Leinster House. We are trying to get specific information but none of the questions are being answered. We have been given a great deal of words without meaning or relevance to the tragic situation in Galway. The waters in Galway Bay are a danger to the health of people who want to swim there.
A question please, Deputy.
It has lost its blue flag status and officials from the local authority have said they will soon have to put up no bathing notices on the beaches in Galway and Salthill, which is a major tourism resort. This Government is waffling and is unable to make a decision about it. My specific question about the causeway has not been answered, so I take it the Minister will not make money available for it. Was the Minister aware, when he decided not to grant approval for the approved scheme and when he suggested going underground on Mutton Island without a causeway, that the annual running costs of the scheme would be £0.5 million higher than the approved scheme — a difference of between £300,000 per year operational costs for the previously approved scheme and £800,000 for the scheme with which the Minister suggests they should proceed? Who will pay the additional £0.5 million operational costs per year, which would increase with inflation? Will those additional operational costs add to the burden of service charges in Galway city? Will they increase the commercial rates in Galway city to a higher level than currently and make it an unattractive location for investment? The future of our area is tied up with that sewerage scheme. The Government is prevaricating and is unable to make a decision.
The Deputy may not make a speech during Question Time.
Government Deputies are making statements that are not factual and the Minister has refused to come here to answer questions.
That appears to be a major expansion of the question. If the Minister wishes to reply, she may do so.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern about this matter. There is a serious problem in Galway.
It is much more serious than the Minister of State appears to realise.
Let us hear the reply.
We have listened to Deputy Molloy, perhaps he would extend me the same courtesy. As he is aware, a court action is pending in relation to this. There is a danger of delay which is not of the Minister's making. He has put forward an approach in a genuine effort to try to resolve problems and prevent delays which are possible if we cannot deal with this issue effectively. Of course any future maintenance charges are a factor that must be taken into account. Those who know about the structure of local authorities are aware that maintenance costs in regard to large schemes will place a considerable burden on local authorities in the future. That factor is being taken into account in regard to the strategy on the funding of local authorities. We are aware of that problem. It does not apply only to Galway but has significance there.
I assure the Deputy this is an attempt to speed up rather than to slow down the resolution of this matter. There is no question of trying to slow it down. He must acknowledge that the Minister has shown commitment to trying to fully resolve the problem.
Deputy McCormack rose.
I may not call the Deputy. I realise the Deputy wishes to speak on this matter, but I may not call him on Priority Questions.
I am the only Member here who is well briefed on the matter.
I am now proceeding to Question No. 17.
On a point of order, the time allocated for Priority Questions has expired. I believe it is in order for me to ask a question as the only Member who is well briefed on this matter. I am the only Member of the local corporation present and I could be of assistance.
The Deputy should not insult the Minister of State.
Given that the Deputy is concerned about this issue in his constituency, I very much regret it is not within my remit to call him in regard to these Priority Questions. That is the position. It is outside the remit of Standing Orders to call the Deputy to speak in regard to those questions. I regret that. That matter is finished. I have called Question No. 17 in the name of Deputy Ryan.
I ask for an explanation because the time allocated for Priority Questions has expired.
If the Deputy will resume his seat, I will explain the matter further to him. In accordance with Standing Orders, I may deal with the remaining Priority Questions Nos. 17 and 18 in ordinary time.
We are eight minutes past the time allocated for Priority Questions.
Irrespective of the time, I may not deal further with the second or third Priority Questions.
Deputy McCormack does not understand the rules.
The Deputy does not understand about the sewerage scheme. I could tell him a thing or two about how he is holding up the progress of the scheme. He is part of the problem.
I do not propose to waste any more time. I have called Question No. 17 which will be dealt with in the category of other questions.
I am the only councillor trying to solve the problem in Galway. I could be helpful to this debate if I were allowed to speak.
The Deputy should table a question.
I could be helpful to both sides.
Let us hear the Minister of State. Perhaps the Deputy will have another opportunity to make his point. I very much regret my inability to allow his question because of the constraints in Standing Orders.
I apologise. I thought I was in order because the time allocated for Priority Questions has expired.
I trust the matter has been satisfactorily explained to the Deputy.
I do not think so.
The Deputy can check the position without any difficulty. We have moved on.
It is not my fault that we are eight minutes over the time allocated for Priority Questions. I did not interfere in the debate during the time allocated for Priority Questions.
The Deputy is interfering now and I ask him to allow the Minister of State to respond.
