Vol. 457 No. 6
5 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the conservation status of the Broadmeadow Estuary between Swords and Malahide, County Dublin, in both Irish and European law; if any further designation is pending subject to transpositions of Council Directives; and the protection, if any, which is or will thereby be afforded to this high amenity area. [15757/95]
In March 1994 regulations entitled, European Communities (Conservation of Wild Birds) (Amendment) Regulations, 1994 — S. I. No. 59 of 1994, were made designating the Broadmeadow Estuary and other areas as special protection areas under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, popularly known as the Birds Directive. The Birds Directive was transposed into national law through regulations, made under the 1972 European Communities Act, which were entitled, European Communities (Conservation of Wild Birds) Regulations, 1985 — S. I. No. 291 of 1985. In accordance with this Directive, member states are obliged to protect all wild birds and their habitats. Under Article 4 member states are bound to take measures to conserve the habitat of two categories of wild birds i.e. certain listed rare or vulnerable species and regularly occurring migratory species. Particular attention must be paid to the protection of wetlands and particularly to wetlands of international importance.
This country must therefore undertake appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or excessive disturbance affecting wild birds, in so far as these are significant. This implies that any new projects or activities situated in or likely to affect special protection areas should not be undertaken without prior consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service in order to ensure that no significant damage to the conservation value of such sites takes place. Broadmeadow Estuary has also been proposed for designation as a natural heritage area. The proposed natural heritage areas have no statutory basis as yet and designation will not occur until after the Wildlife Act, 1976, has been amended. I expect to bring amending legislation before the Oireachtas next year.
A regulation is being prepared which will transpose into national law Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, known as the Habitats Directive and I expect to sign it in the near future. Apart from giving effect to the Habitats Directive, the proposed regulation will strengthen the protection for all existing and future special protection areas. Under the Habitats Directive this country must submit to the European Commission a list of candidate sites meriting designation as special areas of conservation. All proposed natural heritage areas are being examined to determine whether or not they warrant inclusion on this list. Before submission of the list to the Commission I will undertake public consultation by arranging to have the list published and inviting the public to submit their comments on the proposals. As a result of this consultation process, sites may be added to or removed from the list which is eventually submitted to the Commission. The final decision as to whether the Broadmeadow Estuary should be designated a special area of conservation will depend on the outcome of the overall process I have described.
Ba mhaith liom seo a phlé as Gaeilge, mar is eol don Aire, ach, os rud é go bhfuil daoine ón gceantar sin anseo, is dócha gurbh fhearr an plé seo bheith as Béarla.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Will the Minister consider if the future plans may require that either himself or a representative of his Department make a verbal statement at the public inquiry on the Broadmeadow Estuary which is in progress at the prospect of building a 50 ft. wide bridge and a 30 ft. high embankment across part of this ecologically sensitive area? Is the Minister aware that Fingal County Council has shamefully deleted a recommendation by an independent engineer and wildlife consultant that the bridge ought not to be built at the proposed location?
Another question deals with this matter in more detail but I am pleased to respond to the Deputy.
It would not be appropriate to anticipate a question that has been tabled.
Is cuma liom, a Cheann Comhairle, labhaírt i mBéarla nó i nGaeilge, ach b'fhéidir go mbeadh Teachtaí níos compordúla leis an mBéarla.
Officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service have been in touch with Fingal County Council on all of the issues. The Deputy will know from my reply that I am committed to a process of consultation. I was anxious to ensure consultation because people have views to submit. I certainly will facilitate that process. I will examine the suggestion he also made to see whether it is useful. We will continue our contacts and take such action as is appropriate and supportive of the consultation process I have described.
Will the Minister agree that three arms of the State are involved: Fingal County Council, the National Roads, Authority — who have decided one course of action — and the National Parks and Wildlife Service who are trying to get them to change their mind or contradict their intent? This is a bureaucratic muddle, as outlined by Deputy Sargent. The public hearing on the intention to construct a a national primary road network or bridging through the area has caused a great deal of confusion. This matter should have been clarified so that the public débâcle involving Fingal County Council, the funding agency of the National Roads Authority and the National Parks and Wildlife Service could have been avoided.
I am grateful to Deputy Lawlor for enabling me to clarify matters. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is now directly responsible to me. We have certain obligations which are outlined in my substantive reply. I have listed the directive, the European requirements, the regulation and the other measures I intend to take to meet my public responsibilities as Minister. I also intend to review the legislative base in regard to the national heritage areas when I amend the Wildlife Act, 1976, early in 1996. To answer Deputy Lawlor's question directly, it is always best to have co-operation, prior consultation and agreement, but as the Minister with responsibility for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, I have clear responsibilities which I will exercise. I welcome co-operation from those planning developments such as the local authority and the National Roads Authority. As to whether it is desirable to avoid a public hearing, that is a matter for the citizens but we will be reasonable and available for consultation. We will take whatever action is in the public interest. That is the instruction I have given to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
I am glad the Minister is amenable to consultation and I look forward to having further discussions on this matter at the public inquiry. Will the Minister state if amenity value is an aspect that will come under the protection of the habitats directive and, if not, will he comment on whether this proposal might be in breach of that directive? Is it the Minister's intention to sign it into Irish law in time to avoid a project going ahead that might, in retrospect, be in breach of the directive we are anticipating?
I cannot prejudice the powers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service except to say we will properly invoke such facility as is contained in the directive. I am not disposed to anticipate the setting of legal tensions, for example, on the legislative base of a directive and any action which might contradict it. Until we reach that point it is best to continue the current process and try to reach a proper resolution. I will keep this matter under review and there will be no loss, in a public sense, because of any culpable delay.
Arising out of the general question on the preservation of wildlife habitats mentioned in the reply, will the Minister confirm that he has recently withdrawn the £100,000 corncrake conservation grant from the National Parks and Wildlife Service? In view of the great success of this project, on which I congratulate the Minister, does he not think this is a retrograde step which will row back all the progress made as a result of his enlightened decision to make a grant to Tory Island, Sligo, Clare and other areas? Is there not a danger that this project will disappear because of a short-sighted measure in trying to save £100,000?
I want to assist the Deputy but we are now having quite a widening of the subject matter. This question refers to the County Dublin area, essentially the Fingal County Council area.
They have corncrakes there too.
What about the cuckoo?
However, I would like full information to be given to the Deputy.
I appreciate that you are being liberal, a Cheann Comhairle, in allowing this supplementary but I am anxious to answer the Deputy's question. I assure Deputy Nealon that my Department assisted the corncrake project in three locations. The project, which was evaluated, is a good one. The issue then arose as to whether we could have a more elaborate scheme within the REPS which would be more generally available to agricultural practice. I have not ended the scheme, nor have I withdrawn funding from it. I have publicly stated that in the interim between the end of this scheme and it being dealt with within the REPS I will keep the issue of funding under review. I appreciate the wide public support for the conservation of the corncrake.
While the prospect of the corncrake riding on the backs of the swans in the broad meadow is interesting, I want to return to the question I asked on the habitats directive. Did the Minister not promise that this directive would be transposed into Irish law as far back as last spring — other dates were mentioned subsequently? In not yet transposing it, will the Minister agree we are putting back the date for amending the Wildlife Act which I understood was to take place after transposition of the habitats directive? Is it not time to treat this matter with a certain degree of urgency so that the projects to which I refer in the question do not slip through by default?
There is no question of projects slipping through by default. I will be direct in saying I experienced some difficulties of a technical kind in relation to the preparation of the Wildlife Act. The Wildlife Act, 1976, is in urgent need of amendment and work on it is well advanced. There was a period in which certain policy advice was available to my Department but I was not in full control of the Executive execution of some detail required for the legislation. That case no longer arises. I am responsible and the Act will be amended in 1996. There will be no untoward delay because it is important Legislation. The Deputy should seriously reflect on the complicated legal situation that arises. I am anxious to have the Bill amended in 1996 to have the best statutory basis for the different orders and directions that will be made. They will gain from that but I have not stopped the preparatory work until the Act is in place because it was not necessary to do so. When we have good law and good directives we have the best protection.
