Vol. 422 No. 4
6 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Finance if he examined the reported statement of a person (details supplied) on the proposed interpretative centre at Mullaghmore in the Burren, County Clare; if so, if he will outline his response to these statements and his views on whether EC funding for the centre is now seriously in doubt.
15 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of (a) the number of interpretative centres which are being built by the Office of Public Works, (b) the way in which the locations were selected and by whom, (c) the consultations which took place with the local authorities involved in each location, (d) the total cost of the centres and (e) the percentage of EC Structural Funds being obtained; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
16 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline the present position regarding EC funding for the interpretative centres at (a) Mullaghmore, (b) Luggala and (c) Dunquin; and whether any further applications have been submitted for funding for any more interpretative centres in the country.
23 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Finance if he has received a recent submission from An Taisce regarding the proposed Wicklow Mountains Interpretative Centre, including an independent visual impact assessment of the proposed centre; if he will outline his response to the submission; if he has been notified by the European Commission that EC funding may not be made available for the proposed Burren Centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
25 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Finance the reason the Office of Public Works are persisting in constructing the controversial interpretative centre at Luggala in County Wicklow; whether they would insist on this location if EC Structural Funds were not available; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 15, 16, 23 and 25 together.
At present the Office of Public Works operate visitor facilities at 38 national heritage properties, and these were visited by over 1.5 million people last year.
There are 16 visitor centres being built under our current programme. The location of visitor centres is inextricably linked to the location of the heritage property it serves. Visitor centres seek to balance the conservation of the heritage property with facilitating public appreciation of that special property. This cannot be achieved successfully if the visitor centre is located away from the property which it is intended to serve. Visitor centres are usually located at the periphery of the park or other heritage property, where visitor access can be planned in harmony with the conservation of the site. The purpose of such visitor centres is to provide a first-hand experience of the site, in balance with the protection of the property.
National heritage sites are established either under current legislation, as in the case of national nature reserves and national monuments, or by Government decision, as is the case with our national parks.
The Office of Public Works have a wide range of expertise among their staff. This expertise is availed of in choosing the locations for visitor facilities. The range of expertise includes architectural, engineering, archaeological and ecological disciplines, as well as experience in planning for and managing visitors. Under the present programme the centres for the Phoenix Park, Tara, Coole and Killarney National Parks are located in existing buildings. In each of the other cases, the site was chosen by the staff of the Office of Public Works.
Under section 84 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, the Office of Public Works are obliged to consult the planning authority for the area in which a development is proposed. The Office of Public Works have fulfilled their statutory obligations in full in respect of all of these projects, and will continue to do so. I would like to point out also that, in respect of the more controversial visitor centre proposals at Wicklow and the Burren, the Office of Public Works completed the purchase of the proposed sites only following consultations with the relevant local authorities, who agreed to the locations in principle. Furthermore, in the case of the Dunquin site, this was selected following consultation with a community-based group, Fondúireacht an Bhlascaóid. The Boyne Valley site was selected following a planning study by an independent consultant. The location and estimated cost for each centre is as follows:
|
Location |
Total Cost £m |
|
1. Ceide Fields, County Mayo |
2.15 |
|
2. Corlea Bog, County Longford |
1.35 |
|
3. Kilrush, County Clare |
0.15 |
|
4. Clonmacnois, County Offaly |
0.8 |
|
5. Phoenix Park, Dublin city |
1.3 |
|
6. Boyne Valley Archaeological Park |
5.0 |
|
7. Tara, County Meath |
0.25 |
|
8. Waterways Centre, Grand Canal Docks, Dublin |
1.25 |
|
9. Coole National Nature and Historic Park, County Galway |
1.00 |
|
10. Connemara National Park |
0.375 |
|
11. Killarney National Park |
0.90 |
|
12. Wicklow Mountains National Park |
3.8 |
|
13. An Blascaod Mór National Historic Park |
3.5 |
|
14. Dromore Wood Nature Reserve, County Clare |
0.07 |
|
15. Wexford Wildfowl Nature Reserve |
0.10 |
|
16. The Burren National Park |
2.7 |
This is a Second Stage speech.
I am answering questions. I listened at the start of Question Time to people saying we are not giving information but we are giving information. I am disappointed——
(Limerick East): Did the Minister ever hear of a tabular statement?
I have been asked for this information. The total estimated cost of the programme is circa £25 million. The standard and appropriate level of EC funding applicable to these centres is 75 per cent.
Funding for the visitor centres at Wicklow Mountains National Park, An Bhlascaóid Mór National Park and Burren National Park has been approved as part of the tourism operational programme for Structural Funds. There is no question of Structural Funds being withheld on any approved project unless a project is not in compliance with EC Directives or policies.
The statement referred to in Question No. 6 relates to the visitor centres at An Bhlascaóid Mór National Park, Wicklow Mountains National Park and the Burren National Park. The statement accepts the Office of Public Works's views and decisions on the centres at An Bhlascaóid Mór and Wicklow but advises the Office of Public Works that there are some doubts in relation to the procedure adopted by the Office of Public Works in reaching their decision that an EIA was not necessary for the proposed visitor centre at Mullaghmore.
My advice is that the Directive has been fully complied with. An EIA does not have to be carried out for a visitor centre under articles 2 and 4.2, unless the competent authorities in the member state consider that its characteristics so require. The Office of Public Works, as a competent authority under the EIA regulations, did not consider that the characteristics of this project required an EIA. The Department of the Environment agree with this view. The decision here is one for the member state and this is absolutely clear from the Directive.
Notwithstanding the views of the competent authorities, the Government decided, because of various concerns expressed to them, that an EIA would be carried out for this centre, and that process is ongoing.
The Office of Public Works have issued a response to the statement referred to setting out these points and I can say that the Office of Public Works are satisfied that all European Community Directives are being fully complied with and that the EC funding already approved for this project will be forthcoming.
I have received a submission from An Taisce enclosing a copy of a visual impact assessment of the proposed visitor centre for the Wicklow Mountains National Park. An independent environmental impact statement was commissioned for this project; the statement was published; public comments were sought and received and all views were taken into account in the subsequent assessment by the Office of Public Works and by Wicklow County Council. The environmental impact assessment concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts would arise from the proposal. It was accepted by the planning authority, Wicklow County Council. I am satisfied that the location is the most suitable site for the visitor centre in all the circumstances. The project has been through an extensive planning and consultation process. In the light of the foregoing, I approved the placing of the contract for the provision of the visitor centre last month. Work commenced on site last week.
The report referred to does not cover any points not dealt with already in the assessment process. I am satisfied, therefore, that the report contains nothing which would change my decision to proceed with the provision of a visitor centre at this location. The provision of EC Structural Funds has made it possible to proceed with this desirable project at this time. The availability of funds has, however, no influence on the site selection process. The site was selected as being the best available site to meet the criteria set out in the published environment impact statement.
The site chosen for the visitor centre is in a commercial conifer plantation, and it was by far the most suitable at which to convey a first-hand experience of the major characteristics of the national park and to interpret it for visitors. The site is well placed to convey to the visitor the two different landscapes in the area: to the east is the countryside which has been modified greatly by man, while to the west and south-west is a splendid panorama of the Wicklow Mountains. The building will be sheltered by the existing conifer plantation on the site. This will be converted gradually to a mixed species forest which will be more attractive to wildlife as well as being less visually obtrusive than the conifer plantation while retaining its screening effect. No other site in the area can meet adequately the requirements for a visitor centre on the eastern side of the Wicklow Mountains National Park. There would have been no point whatsoever in providing a visitor centre in a location where the aims and objectives of the centre could not be achieved, such as in an existing town or village.
The Office of Public Works are at present considering what projects they will submit for inclusion in the next Structural Funds programme which commences in 1994. It is too early yet to say which projects will be included in the application.
To say the least, this is disgraceful filibustering. Let me ask the Minister a question and he can answer "yes" or "no". Has he seen a letter to the Government from the EC Environment office signed by its Director-General Mr. Brinkhorst, in which he expresses the opinion that the location of the Burren National Park is inappropriate?
No such letter exists. Mr. Brinkhorst, Director-General DG 11, wrote a letter to the permanent head of the Irish permanent representation in Brussels. I received a copy of that letter on behalf of the Government. I have considered that letter. I am satisfied that I have made the right decision pertaining to the other centres. I am quite satisfied we will meet all the conditions and criteria laid down in this country and by the European Commission and that in turn we will make a conclusive decision on the Burren Park.
Time for dealing with priority questions is obviously long since exhausted. I am proceeding now to other questions. No. 9 in the name of Deputy Taylor.
On a point of order——
(Limerick East): We must protest. This was an outrageous filibuster so that the priority questions would not be dealt with.
That is not true.
I have no control over Minister's replies.
On a point of order, can I clarify that questions that have not been answered, Nos. 7 and 8, will be submitted in the normal way and we will get the normal replies? What is the procedure? Will we get any reply to these questions?
If the Deputy so requires he will get a written reply.
Half a loaf is clearly better than no bread.
Certainly, Deputy.
I want to object to Deputy Noonan's allegation. I did not put down the priority question. Deputy Noonan allowed one of his Members to put in one of his priority questions. I did not even know what the question was in any great detail. I answer priority questions as I take them.
(Limerick East): I am not suggesting any collusion between the Minister and the Minister of State.
No, but the Deputy said the reply was filibustering to stop me answering the questions.
