I sought to raise this issue on the Adjournment because I believe it raises fundamental questions about the Minister's role, that of his Department and the future development of environmental policy here. I want to know in particular whether the Minister accepts collective Cabinet responsibility. There is great confusion in the minds of the public about the Minister's role in this respect.
The recent decisions on the three interpretative centres represent a significant change from what the Minister had previously stated his beliefs to be. It constitutes a significant move away from that for which the Minister stood in terms of participation, consultation, and listening to environmental groups. What are the Minister's views on the future development of interpretative centres?
I raise the decision of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dempsey, this evening because many of our citizens who have been following this debate, and whom I believe the Minister endeavoured to convince of his views when he travelled around the country with the said Minister, want to know the position. The people are following this debate with great interest. They deserve to be informed by the Minister, as the policy maker in this area, how these decisions were arrived at. For example, how was the democratic process of decision-making, as interpreted by Fianna Fáil and Labour in Government, arrived at? What were the factors that influenced that decision? Did the Minister agree with the decision which appears to be in direct conflict with much of what he has said? The Minister has spoken about transparency in Government and the Taoiseach spoke of open Government. Can the Minister say how this has been reflected in these decisions? It is clear that a Fianna Fáil Minister of State took this decision which appears to be very different from and at variance with what the Minister said previously.
At a critical moment, perhaps the most critical opportunity for the Minister to put his mark on policy in relation to the development of our environment, why did the Minister not influence this policy in the direction he outlined? I am concerned about future policy in this respect because, as the Minister said, it is his area of responsibility. There is a link between this policy and future developmental policy. Clearly in future such policies will be pursued in relation to interpretative centres here. The Minister must say whether they are his policies. Indeed in the case of the interpretative centres about which I speak — those at Luggala, Mullaghmore and the Boyne Valley — new development is envisaged. Will such development fall within the area of responsibility of the Minister?
Why does the Minister not comment on policy at present? Why is he washing his hands of this issue maintaining that it is a matter for the planning process? Some of the failure to which I have referred relates to a decision taken on the formation of this Government when we witnessed the separate views of the Minister and the Minister of State, the Minister contending he was responsible for future policy. Surely there is a link between the two and that is what I would like the Minister to clarify this evening.
There is also the matter of the cost to the taxpayer, the loss of public money to the Exchequer and from Europe. There are serious lessons to be learned in this respect vis-a-vis the National Development Plan given that some of the decisions taken in it were driven by the availability of European Union Structural Funds.
There has been a fudge between responsibility for future policy on these three interpretative centres. Indeed, the manner in which the decision was taken, will have implications for future development here. Clearly, the Minister of State has taken one route and I should be glad if the Minister outlined the route he intends taking. The Minister has been sidelined and his capacity to devise policy in this area should be seriously undermined.
