Deputy John Kelly gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of a planning application relating to an ESB station in County Kerry.
Adjournment Debate. - Kerry ESB Scheme.
Thank you for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. In order to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding I want to make it clear from the outset that I have no knowledge of the concrete facts of the case involving the ESB's planning application in County Kerry and no opinion about it. I must not be taken as expressing a view as to whether or not the application made by the ESB is justified or whether or not it should be acceded to by the planning authority. I am concerned here only with the dimension of Government which this episode appears to reveal.
I must admit that all I know about it is what I read in this morning's paper, plus what I have been able to gather from a couple of very informal last minute inquiries made today. These inquiries did not involve any member of the public service, Bord Fáilte or the ESB. I would not wish the Minister to imagine that I am using anything which anybody told me in breach of duty. Anything which I have is secondhand and hearsay. I know it will suffer from that weakness in the Minister's eyes but he is too fair-minded a man to use that as a way of insinuating that what I am saying is not true. I believe that the people I have spoken to are telling me what they believe to be the truth. Very often the only information which a Member of this House has is what he sees in the paper. He feels he owes it to the public to raise what seems to him to be interesting from the public point of view, even if it is in a format which does not amount to firm evidence of a kind that would be received in court.
The ESB have apparently got plans to build a certain number of small hydroelectric schemes. This is something which, in the days of the oil crisis, I was strongly in favour of, and I still am in favour of it as long as it can be done without impairing larger national interests. One of the schemes is for a site in County Kerry which, I must admit, I do not know. I can imagine that opinions in the county are divided as to the desirability of this scheme and I wish to take no sides in the matter.
What interests me is a report in The Irish Times of today which reads as follows:
Bord Fáilte dramatically withdrew its objection yesterday to a proposed ESB hydroelectric scheme in Kerry at a planning appeals hearing in Tralee.
A Bord Fáilte spokesman told the hearing that the withdrawal followed instruction from the Department of Tourism after consultation with the Department of Energy.
I understand, having spoken to a person who was present on this occasion, not a member of the public service, that the member of the Bord Fáilte staff involved had travelled down to Kerry the previous evening for the purpose of this hearing. As my informant put it, "word followed him"— in other words he was ignorant, on leaving Dublin, of the intention of the board to withdraw their objection to this plan — that his brief, so to speak, was being withdrawn from him. He very frankly told the hearing that these were now his instructions, and that he could no longer pursue the objection which the board had originally entered. I am very interested in the word "instruction". The person I spoke to very fairly and honestly said that he could not swear that the word "instruction" was used, but that it was not a misrepresentation of what this gentleman had said. He told me that he had certainly said that the reason for the withdrawal of the appeal was that the Department of Energy had been in contact with Bord Fáilte.
I also understand — again I make the Minister aware that this is hearsay evidence and I do not know how good it is — that the ESB officials present in Tralee on the previous evening knew at that time, while the Bord Fáilte official was going, as fast as a 1955 CIE turbo-electric diesel could bring him, to Tralee, that the appeal was being withdrawn. The ESB people there knew that it was a dead duck as far as Bord Fáilte were concerned and they knew in advance of the Bord Fáilte official.
I consider that that is a history which would require explanation in view of a couple of matters of law. When I say "of law" I hope that the Members in the House will not think I am lecturing the House as a lawyer. I am lecturing the House, or anyone who wants to take an interest in such matters, not as a lawyer but as a citizen, and as somebody interested in the structures of Government and in making sure that these are not circumvented and that we do not have anyone cutting Gordian knots through them. There are legal and proper ways of doing things and there are illegal and improper ways. If there is any substance in the idea that any Government Department could lean on Bord Fáilte in such a way as to make them desist from the exercise of a function which not one but two statutes confer on them, we are witnessing an instance of misgovernment, an instance of a Gordian knot being cut through, an instance of a short cut being taken with procedures which we are entitled to expect will be respected.
Bord Fáilte have been operating since 1952 and have earned a great deal of credit from everybody interested in tourist development, including the Minister opposite. Even then they inherited a certain structure in as much as they replaced an earlier organisation. One of the functions of Bord Fáilte under the Tourist Traffic Act, 1952, section 5(2) is to "protect and maintain and to aid in protecting and maintaining historic buildings, sites and shrines and places of scenic, historic, scientific or other interest to the public," and to facilitate that by providing information. The Dáil, as long ago as 1952, 36 years ago, conferred on this infant board the function of protecting and helping to protect scenic values in the State.
As I have said, I do not know this area and I am not in any way taking sides about whether the objection entered by Bord Fáilte is objectively justified or whether I would agree with them about it. I hope I do not need to stress that again. That is one of the board's functions and if they did not take an interest in large-scale engineering operations, which naturally hydroelectric work would involve in a mountainous area of scenic value, they would be neglecting their statutory duty. Presumably, therefore, it was in the discharge of their statutory duty that they entered this objection. Whether they were objectively justified in doing so or whether they were being needlessly pernickety I do not know and I have no view about it. They purported to be discharging their statutory function in taking an interest in the scenic development of the country and in trying to protect it, as far as they could, by objecting to a development which they thought would impair it.
In addition, under the planning law, Bord Fáilte are a member of a very select little club. Not everybody has a status in the planning law to object and to pursue objections up to appeals level to proposed developments. It is not just anybody who may do that. It is not, for example, the Gaelic Athletic Association, the Royal Dublin Society or anybody of that sort alone who is entitled to pursue objections to what they think are undesirable developments. There are only four such authorised bodies: the National Monuments Advisory Council, An Taisce, the Arts Council and Bord Fáilte. In other words, their relevance, their standing in regard to the planning process is specifically recognised by the legislation and by regulations enacted under legislation.
Bord Fáilte under two heads — in regard to the parent statute and the principal statute of the planning law — were thus exercising bona fide and conscientiously their statutory function in lodging this objection. I consider that for that board to withdraw an objection in consequence of Ministerial representations made to them at the last moment, as appears from what I have said about the official who travelled to Tralee in ignorance of what the ESB officials on the spot knew, is quite wrong. I consider a board which is treated like that is at the receiving end of a Gordian cut. I do not like that kind of Government, and I know the Minister opposite well enough to say with confidence that he dislikes it too. He is not the kind of man who would instinctively reach for that kind of Government if there was a better way of doing things. I do not like that kind of element which is beginning to surface in the Government opposite, not that it was ever truly absent — it ran underground like the Poddle for a few miles — the presidential touch, I might call it, where what the conventions which surround the Constitution require are relatively unimportant, whereby some larger, bulkier objective which has not yet been clothed in legal form, is the one to pursue, and must be pursued no matter what stands in the way, or whose legal rights or legal duties stand in the way.
Bord Fáilte are not just messing when it comes to intervention in the planning process. They are not just an élitist middle-class Dublin 4-organisation who decide over needle-sharp glasses of dry sherry that they are going to object to this or that trifling development in an area which is of an immediate amenity interest to the local branch members. It is not that. They have intervened since March 1986 on 27 occasions by way of objecting to proposed developments and on 17 of those occasions they have intervened successfully. In other words, anyone who takes the line — and I do not believe the Minister would do so — that Bord Fáilte are a crowd of élitist, finicky, pernickety hair-splitters who want to hold up a justifiable and reasonable development because of their commitment to unreal standards of amenity, has a very heavy onus of proof to discharge. He will have to explain how in 17 out of 27 appeals they have been successful, have lost only five appeals, the remaining five being still pending.
I understand and this necessarily has to be hearsay at several removes, that the matter was before the Government last Tuesday; if that is so, it raises this matter to a far more serious plane and I intend to pursue it at that level. The Dáil will expect, and the public ought to expect from the Minister an explanation of how it was thought proper to interfere with a statutory board in the pursuance not just of their rights but of their duties in regard to the functions for which they were created.
I would like to know in a nutshell, not to hold the House up by redundant rhetoric, whether we may take it, and I would be very surprised if anybody were to say so, that Bord Fáilte withdrew their objections to this planning application because they had changed their mind on its merits. If they had changed their mind, they did not find time to tell the official who travelled to Tralee at 6 p.m. the previous evening. I would like to know that, and naturally I will accept the Minister's word, because no other explanation will justify the performance reported in The Irish Times today. If they changed their minds without any pressure being brought to bear on them, without any new information being given of a kind which might justify a second view being taken, that would lead me to regret having held the House up over this matter. But that is the only reason which could justify them doing what they did. If there is any question of their having been leaned on, or having their arms twisted, a nudge, a wink, a nod or a sign exchanged between a Government Department and the Minister in charge of that Department, or the Taoiseach at the top of that apex, then we are seeing another exercise of bad Government. I would be sorry to think the Minister opposite would be willing to associate himself with that, and I will listen with great interest to his comments.
I respect the approach of Deputy Kelly in this matter and I can assure him that he will find no resistance from me to raising what he regards as something important and in the public interest. When he hears the facts he may modify his views or suspicions about the procedure.
This matter was not considered at Government, and it is important to make that point. I would like to give the House a resume of the pertinent facts. These facts were brought to my attention for the first time by my colleague, the Minister for Energy, on Tuesday last, not in Government. He immediately contacted me and asked me to review this as a matter of urgency. It is relevant to note when this first came to my attention.
The background is that in October 1987 the Minister for Energy announced that Ireland was to receive almost £20 million from the EC under its Valoren programme over the next five years to finance developmental work in the areas of indigenous energy. One of the measures included in the package was the development by the ESB of ten small-scale hydro-electric facilities in Counties Cork, Kerry, Leitrim and Donegal.
Bord Fáilte were first informed of the ESB proposals in July 1987. In September 1987, during discussions and correspondence on the environmental impact of the hydro programme, Bord Fáilte listed eight sites which they immediately envisaged could cause some problems. The Glenbeigh site was not on the list. As far as I was concerned that was the most important fact I got out of the statement from the Minister. The ESB commissioned An Foras Forbartha — nobody could say they were not concerned — to carry out environmental impact studies on the Glenbeigh site. Their recommendations largely were subsequently made conditions of the planning permission granted by Kerry County Council.
I think about 22 conditions were put in by Kerry County Council. The ESB state that they kept Bord Fáilte informed of the proposals and that at no time did Bord Fáilte formally indicate that these were unacceptable to them, until the appeal was lodged. The total capital cost of developing the ten sites is £6.891 million, of which £3.81 million will be received from the EC Regional Development Fund. It is estimated that, in all, 200 people will be employed during the construction stage, very valuable jobs for areas which are already suffering high unemployment.
I know that Deputy Kelly, in fairness to him, stated that he was not making any value judgment, or any judgment about the matter one way or the other, that he was concerned more about the procedures. Having assessed the facts as outlined, I decided that Bord Fáilte should be requested to withdraw their appeal and instructed a senior official of my Department to contact that board and advise them accordingly. I think that the Bord Fáilte official had already left Dublin some time before I was even informed about this matter at all.
I must put on the record that I am more concerned than most to protect the integrity of our physical environment, which I regard as one of the cornerstones of our tourism product. Apart altogether from the tourism product, it is a cornerstone of the enjoyment of many of our citizens who have the privilege of seeing places like Glenbeigh, which I know myself.
It is surely not beyond the collective brains of three State bodies to devise a scheme which would not damage visual amenities, or the ecological balance of the area which, as I have already said, I know and which we all acknowledge is among the most beautiful in Ireland. We can do this and at the same time reap the employment and other benefits for the areas covered by the proposed programme.
I also want to emphasise again, in the context of Deputy Kelly's case, although this is hardly relevant, that if the package does not go ahead we could lose the EC funding which we negotiated for that project. There is something that puzzles me. We invest very heavily in engineering and architectural education; the taxpayers invest very heavily in those two areas. Have we not got people with the expertise to plan and execute, in particular areas, works that will not damage but could, indeed, enhance the scenic beauty of the area? I think of what McCormack did in Creeslough, with Muckish in the background, or what he did at the Grianan of Aileach, where he enhanced the natural beauty of two lovely areas of Donegal. Why this cannot be done by the experts we have in the engineering and architectural fields I do not know. I believe it can be done. I know that Professor Frank Mitchell is involved in this and he is a man for whom I have a great respect and with whom I have some acquaintance from some years ago.
I know that the 1952 Act, that is the parent Act, indicates that Bord Fáilte can act for the preservation of scenic beauty. I am so conscious of it that on a couple of occasions since becoming Minister I have known that they made interventions and I supported and sustained them. I know also that they have a role to play under the Planning Act. However, I am asking the House to assess what I have said about this situation and, in particular, to assess what a normal reaction would be to the fact that initially, when Glenbeigh was mentioned, Bord Fáilte had no objection to it.
I should like to ask the Minister whether all the points he has made might not have been more properly made to An Bord Pleanála? Was that not the way to do things, rather than to clobber somebody who is exercising his statutory right to object?
The Minister has replied to the debate.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 3 June 1988.