Olivia Mitchell
Ceist:3 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the implications of foot and mouth disease for the spending and operation of his Department and for local authorities. [10105/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Foot and Mouth Disease Implications.
On the basis of the information available to me at this stage, it appears the implications of the foot and mouth disease have not adversely affected, to any significant extent, the spending and operations of my Department or the local authorities.
The Minister's Department must be the only one that has not been affected by the foot and mouth disease issue. It was brought to my attention that a firm in the private sector had to lay off 12 surveyors involved in site investigation work. It occurred to me that the foot and mouth disease restrictions must also be affecting the Department's work. That was borne out yesterday by the National Roads Authority in its work where it has had to cease all site investigation work. To what extent is the Minister releasing moneys that would otherwise be allocated for that work to other projects to ensure there is not any undue delay in the completion of any projects, be they water works, sewerage schemes or national or minor road construction work under the national development plan?
There are no plans currently to change expenditure on any of the programmes in the Department on foot of any effects the foot and mouth disease might have. As the Deputy will be aware, various restrictions have been placed on inspections by officials, contractors and so on, but on the basis of the information available to me it is not possible to quantify the cost incurred in that. It would have some effect on some local authorities. The major expense for the Department and local authorities so far has been the purchase of mats and disinfectants for their offices and the disruption of meetings of local authorities. Louth County Council would have experienced more disruption and expense than most other local authorities. It has staff working extensively on measures to combat the spread of foot and mouth disease. However, the issue of the disease is not adversely affecting the administration—
Is there a reallocation of money that has not been spent on projects as a result of the restriction measures?
There is not any indication there will be a need to reallocate any funding within the Department on the basis of the foot and mouth disease issue.
With regard to the disposal of animals slaughtered, what measures are being put in place to ensure they do not present a problem in the future? Have local authorities been fully informed of the recommendations for the disposal of animals issued by the Environmental Protection Agency? If so, do they have the expertise on site to ensure that each farm in their areas are carrying out burial of animals in a way that will not cause pollution in the future, quite apart from the spread of the disease?
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the local authorities and the Office of Public Works have the instructions of the EPA on the disposal of animals. To my knowledge, that disposal is being carried out in the manner prescribed by the EPA. As the Deputy will be aware, most of the animals are being sent for rendering rather than burial. It was only animals suspected of having foot and mouth disease that were buried, and burial was overseen by the local authorities. I understand Louth County Council has between 20 and 24 staff working exclusively on the foot and mouth disease issue. That is including local authority engineers in the water, planning and building areas. They are working with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The EPA issued guidelines on the burial of animals and it also issued guidelines in the event of the need to burn animals. The council, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or whoever has to undertake the burial of animals must do so in accordance with the principles and guidelines laid down by the EPA.
In the event of the referenda proceeding, has the Minister given any thought to the provision of a postal vote for people in rural areas?
That question strays a bit far from the subject of the question before us.
It relates to the operation of the Department. I am sure the Minister is dying to answer it.
It is a valid question, but a separate one. However, if the Minister wishes to comment—
It is valid in the context of the question before us.
The holding of the referenda is a matter for the Government and for the Departments concerned. The running of them, in terms of the returning officers and so on, would be a matter for the operations of this Department. The holding of the referenda is subject to developments in relation to foot and mouth disease. The Deputy can take it that if it is a danger and people cannot engage in activities relating to the referenda because of foot and mouth disease, they will not be happening.