33 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if he has received a report dealing with coastal erosion in the Youghal area of County Cork; if so, the actions he plans to take as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3660/02]

Three evaluations by consultant engineers have been undertaken on behalf of Cork County Council since 1999 to assess the extent of coastal erosion at Youghal and to identify the most appropriate and cost-efficient coast protection solutions. The most recent report was completed last year and recommends a phased approach to addressing coastal erosion in the area commencing with the strengthening of the sea wall and the subsequent construction of groynes. My Department provided funding towards two of these reports and has assessed all three evaluations.

I allocated £20,000, €25,394.76, in 2001 to Youghal Urban District Council. I am advised that consultants have prepared the necessary tender documentation on behalf of the local authority and that planning and other statutory permissions are being progressed.

Does the Minister agree it is bizarre that three reports have been carried out on this matter? On 24 March 1999 his predecessor told me that a detailed report was carried out by consulting engineers which concluded that coastal protection works involving the extension of groynes and beach nourishment were required at an estimated cost of £5.1 million. Nothing has happened since. We have had paralysis by analysis. Two more reports have been assessed by the Minister and his officials yet no real money has been made available. Nothing is happening while the beach is being washed away and terrible damage is being done. When does the Minister propose to initiate real action after four years?

I have not seen a figure of the magnitude suggested by the Deputy. Did he mention £5 million?

The Minister's predecessor stated the work would cost £5.1 million.

My figures suggest an estimated cost of about €1.2 million for the strengthening of the sea wall, incorporating an aesthetically designed retired flood wall. The subsequent groynes which are proposed are estimated to cost €3.4 million on a phased basis. It is considered that priority should be given to the strengthening of the sea wall. That is the basis on which the allocation is being made and the tender documents are being prepared.

A sum of £20,000 has been made available for work which has not taken place and there is some money for consultants. However, no work has occurred on the ground after four years. The Minister does not seem to know about this detailed report which his predecessor had on 24 March 1999. I do not know how long the report was lying in the Department prior to that date, but does the Minister agree this is incompetence of the highest order and that action has to be taken? After four years it is not good enough that nothing has happened.

I do not know what the urgency is all about because this is the first time I have heard from the Deputy regarding this matter.

That is not so.

As far as I am concerned the matter is with the local authority. I provided the money in 2001 and I am waiting for the various planning and tendering procedures to proceed.

I raised this matter with the Minister on 10 May. This is not the first time I have done so.

Please allow the Minister to respond and I will then call Deputy Sheehan.

This is the first time the Deputy has raised this matter during Question Time which is where his colleagues normally raise urgent matters.

That is not so.

Please allow the Minister to respond.

The Minister should not try to mislead the House. He should admit he is wrong.

We have gone over time and I wish to call Deputy Sheehan.

On a point of order.

I ask the Deputy to give way to Deputy Sheehan.

The Minister made a statement which is verifiably wrong on the basis of the record of the House. The Chair should afford the Minister an opportunity to apologise.

That is not a point of order. The Minister was on his feet. I call Deputy Sheehan.

The Minister made a statement which is verifiably wrong and he should apologise.

We must move on to the next question. Deputy Sheehan has been patient all afternoon.

I do not wish to mislead the House.

Then the Minister should stop telling lies.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw the term "telling lies".

The Minister made a statement which is entirely at variance with the record of the House.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw the term "telling lies".

I withdraw the term, but I ask the Minister to correct the untruth he told a few moments ago. He is not going to get away with this.

The Deputy is being disorderly.

I am happy to clarify that this is the first occasion during Question Time on which Deputy Stanton raised this issue.

That is not so.

If Deputy Stanton raised the matter by way of a written question, I was not aware of that.

The Minister is wrong and he should be man enough to apologise.

The Deputy will have to find another way of dealing with this matter.

If Deputy Dukes is so pernickety I will not—

Please allow Deputy Sheehan to speak. He has been patient all afternoon and he is entitled to ask a supplementary question.

The Minister should not be a gurrier all the time.

How much money did the Department spend on coastal erosion in 2002? How much money was allocated to County Cork? Cork is the largest county and comprises one eighth of the entire country. The county has suffered coastal erosion for the past 25 years. The greater part of my constituency is falling into the Atlantic Ocean, but the Minister is doing nothing. How much money was spent on coastal erosion last year and how much was spent on County Cork?

We have moved outside the realm of the question. I will allow a final reply from the Minister.

The total amount provided for coastal erosion under the national development plan by the Minister for Finance is €44 million. I am not sure of the amount spent last year, but the provision for this year is about €6 million which is a sizeable figure and more than has been spent in the past.

I wish to clarify that it was not my intention to mislead the House. I was not thinking in terms of a written question which might have been tabled some time ago. I was referring to the fact that this is the first time this issue was raised during oral questions.

So no money has been spent on Cork.