Vol. 433 No. 6
2 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the number of submissions he has received in respect of the interpretative centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala; if he intends to incorporate such submissions in his future proposals for the areas concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have previously indicated to the House that my main concern has been the damage to community relationships that the controversies in relation to the siting of these interpretative centres have created and that all my efforts to date have been, and remain, the achievement of consensus and reconciliation. In the light of the Supreme Court decision of 26 May 1993, the Government on 2 June 1993, instructed the Office of the Public Works to engage in the widest possible consultations with all interested parties before submission of any planning applications were made in respect of the proposed centres at Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley. Any submissions received by me are forwarded to the Minister of State in charge of the Office of Public Works as part of the consultation process.
Will the Minister indicate the number of submissions he received and to what extent, if any, he proposes to make recommendation when passing on those submissions to the Office of Public Works?
At this stage it would be difficult to put on exact figure on the number of submissions received, but a great number have been received and the consultation process is ongoing. I doubt if a day passes when submissions are not received from individuals and groups. Submissions sent directly to me are transferred to become part of the consultation process.
My views in regard to the interpretative centres have been made known to the Government and my colleagues in Government are fully aware of them. Obviously, at the end of the consultation process I will have another opportunity of making my views known.
Will the Minister indicate to what extent the controversies have affected the future development of such facilities in the Burren, for example, with reference in particular to the erection of "No Trespassing" signs in the locality? Will he indicate also whether he has vetted the submissions received by his Department and if the Office of Public Works will be in a position to make a decision given the conflicting information contained in the submissions?
I stated with sincerity that all my actions and observations to date have been aimed at the building of consensus and reconciliation. My commitment to a wide consultation process in advance of the submission of planning permission was entirely geared towards that. It would be wrong of me to interfere in the consultation process by vetting submissions and it would be equally wrong of me to prejudge the work of the consultation process. Hopefully, at the end of this period of consultation we will have moved towards some form of reasonable adjustment in what is a difficult position, particularly in the case of north Clare.
In relation to the erection of "No Trespassing" signs, I am sure the Deputy will agree that the reaction of those who see themselves as interests in this community conflict is not under my control, but it would be regrettable if all of those who are concerned about the best possible developments in north Clare, and the other areas to which the question refers, did not use the opportunity for moving back from accepted positions, such as the actions described by the Deputy, and seeking some adjustment.
Deputy Durkan rose.
I cannot remain unduly long on any priority question as it would be to the disadvantage of other priority questions.
