Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Sep 2015

Vol. 890 No. 2

Priority Questions

Beit Collection

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Question:

1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if she will provide an update on her efforts to ensure the paintings in the Beit collection remain here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32428/15]

This question is pretty straightforward. It seeks to establish from the Minister what has happened since we last discussed the particular issue around Russborough House, the very valuable and important collection there, previously in the ownership of Sir Alfred and Lady Beit, and the fact the paintings that were to be auctioned at Christie's have been withdrawn. What has happened in the interim and where do we now stand?

Last June, the Alfred Beit Foundation took the decision to postpone the sale of the paintings referred to in the Deputy's question in light of a request I had made to it and the emergence of Irish donors who were considering the purchase of some artworks. While conscious and respectful of the independence of the foundation, I welcomed that decision to allow the necessary breathing space to explore other options to keep the artworks in Ireland if possible.

One possible solution could involve the donation of artworks to an Irish cultural institution using tax relief provided under section 1003 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. This tax relief relates to donations to approved bodies of heritage items that are considered outstanding examples of their type and whose export from the State would constitute a diminution of the accumulated cultural heritage of Ireland. Under this scheme, 80% of the market value of the items donated is offset against the current tax liability of the donor. A selection committee chaired by my Department is currently considering a proposed donation of one of the Beit paintings under this scheme.

I met again with representatives of the Alfred Beit Foundation at the end of July. A number of issues were discussed, including issues regarding taxation and other assistance which the State could offer. At my request, my officials have engaged with relevant Departments and State agencies to consider how best Russborough House could be assisted on a long-term basis. A high-level meeting was held last week between officials of my Department, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, together with members of the Beit Foundation, at which it was agreed to maintain contact on a range of issues.

While the foundation deferred the proposed sale of the paintings until later this year, it has indicated publicly that the foundation continues to require a significant endowment to secure its future. This may entail selling paintings to put this in place unless donors become available. I have made it clear that my Department does not have the resources to provide for such a fund. My Department will continue to work with all parties, however, to assist the foundation in any way in managing Russborough House.

Can we establish with certainty then that what the Beit Foundation says it requires is an endowment of the order of €15 million to be able to continue to operate Russborough House successfully? Is it also the case that the foundation made it abundantly clear to the Minister that the tax relief at 80% was not adequate to attract the level of investment required to secure the future of the art assets held at Russborough House and that tax relief needed to be restored to 100%? One would assume there could be sufficient conditionality attaching to any relief at 100% that would guarantee that the entire benefit of that relief accrued to the people. Is it true, as reported by The Irish Times today, that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, has refused the Minister's request to increase the tax relief from 80% to 100%?

What is important here is that we have to focus on the long-term future and viability of Russborough House and not only around the sale of the paintings. Following a request from the trustees, I wrote to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, regarding the section 1003 tax relief and whether a rate of 100% could be reinstated. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, responded to me to say that it is not his intention to amend the tax relief, noting the fact that 80% of the market value in tax relief is already very generous and that the rate was introduced to ensure there was some philanthropic aspect to donations. Providing tax relief at a rate of 100% on the value of an item would have the exact same impact on the Exchequer finances as if the State were to purchase the item outright. I raised the issue with the Minister and that is the response I got, namely, that the 80% relief is a very attractive tax incentive.

I was not perhaps great at mathematics but I do not know how the figures the Minister is giving to us could be correct. I suspect that if Russborough House were located in Limerick, we would not be having the particular difficulty we have in this instance. It seems that the Government is quite prepared to allow the Beit Foundation to have to cannibalise itself, in effect, to sustain the house into the future. Will the Minister advise what number of visitors would be required at Russborough House for the foundation to be self-sustaining and to be able to finance itself into the future? I note that something in excess of 1 million people have visited Russborough House since 1978. That does not seem to be an inordinately high number of visitors. The location of Russborough House in the garden of Ireland is quite phenomenal and one would assume that if properly packaged and more effectively marketed by being given the resources by the State, and I am not blaming the foundation for the difficulty, this venue could be far more attractive. It might not be Downton Abbey but it certainly has enormous potential to attract tourists to the area.

I want to make it clear that Russborough House is an independent trust set up by Sir Alfred Beit. I absolutely respect that they have made decisions themselves and they have looked at this long-term plan. We have met them. We have offered all the support we can. Late last week a meeting was held between the trustees and the interdepartmental steering group that was established by me. They discussed measures which would help the long-term sustainability of Russborough House, including the development of marketing opportunities for the house in the context of the Ireland's Ancient East project.

The Alfred Beit Foundation development of a master plan to leverage philanthropic support was also discussed and the OPW is willing to support and advise on this plan. The Department was also updated on the Alfred Beit trustees’ talks with potential donors. I do not have the number of visitors to the house every year but there are opportunities in terms of Ireland’s Ancient East to increase numbers. It is a question of working with the Department and we will give them all the supports necessary.

The OPW is very good at running historic houses. It has a lot of expertise in that area and it is happy to make its expertise available to the Alfred Beit Trust. We will continue to work with it and give it all the help we can. That is what we have to do. It is a joined-up approach to the various supports for house owners. The steering group on historic houses was established earlier in the year. It is a question of trying to work with them. There is a huge financial burden on anyone who owns a historic house. We do want to work with the trustees to try to find the best solution possible. We have met them on several occasions. I respect the fact that it is an independent trust set up by Sir Alfred Beit.

City of Culture Initiative

Sandra McLellan

Question:

2. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the reason more than €150,000 of public finances was transferred from three Limerick City of Culture 2014 events to other projects, some of which were not exclusive to the year-long celebrations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32372/15]

Will the Minister explain why more than €150,000 of public finances was transferred from three Limerick City of Culture 2014 events to other projects, some of which were not exclusive to the year-long celebrations?

In budget 2014, an allocation of €6 million was made to Limerick City of Culture 2014 to be paid through the Vote of my Department. In November 2014, sanction was received from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, on foot of an application from Limerick City and County Council, for applying additional funding of up to €1.5 million to Limerick City of Culture from possible savings on my Department’s Vote. The additional funding was sought in respect of a range of activities, including international events, commissioning, legacy events, Made in Limerick projects and the Special Olympics. In the event, savings of just over €1.1 million materialised and this amount was applied to the project.

While, in general, decisions in relation to individual projects and artistic matters were the responsibility of Limerick City of Culture, all expenditure of public funds provided by my Department was subject to formal agreements with Limerick City and County Council, which are published on my Department’s website. I am satisfied that the funding in question was applied in accordance with those agreements.

Engagement with Limerick City of Culture about the final account for 2014 is continuing and I anticipate that the completed account will be submitted shortly. Overall, I consider that the Limerick City of Culture was a success, both in cultural terms and in enhancing civic participation in the city, and I believe it has left a lasting and positive legacy.

Limerick City of Culture still requires an extra €400,000 of taxpayers’ money to meet a funding shortfall after a spend of almost €11 million. As the Minister stated, €7.1 million was provided by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and €3.4 million was raised through sponsorship and donations. A total of €152,000 was allocated to three projects which did not proceed and the funds were moved elsewhere. The cancelled events were among 15 listed events and were funded from an initial Department allocation of €6 million.

An unknown amount was allocated to the project The Shouting Fence and was not recouped. How much was that and was the money simply lost? Limerick City of Culture has to date refused to state how much was spent on that event. The Shouting Fence required up to 300 singers for the performance who were originally to be local volunteers. Due to insufficient numbers signing up, the decision was made to hire performers from the United Kingdom. It is understood contractual payments and a booking deposit were paid for this.

The remainder of the €152,000 was transferred to three events not originally listed on the commission strand’s 15 events for public funding, the recent Culture Night, Christmas in Limerick and Limerick Winter Carnival. The organisers have stated they received the Department’s permission to transfer the funds. Does the Minister agree that the whole debacle smacks of a total lack of co-ordination and planning and can she explain why scheduled events did not proceed? Is it sufficient to say it was simply a case of poor judgment while spending taxpayers’ money?

I do not agree that the whole thing was a debacle. In fact Limerick City of Culture was a huge success. The Government initially committed €6 million for Limerick City of Culture. Following an application from Limerick City and County Council, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform last November sanctioned additional funding of up to €1.5 million from savings in the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht's Vote. In the event, the savings realised were of the order of €1.1 million and this amount was paid over. In total, €7.1 million was committed and paid. In respect of some of events or projects not proceeding as originally planned, this is something that can happen during the course of any year-long programme. I am satisfied that the projects funded in late 2014 were appropriate and that the additional funding was applied in line with the formal agreements in place between the council and the Department. I am also satisfied that the application of all the Department's funding will be fully transparent and accountable. Information on expenditure on the different city of culture programmes is available on my Department's website. A financial account for 2014 will be completed shortly and submitted to the Department, which is also carrying out an independent evaluation which will be published in due course.

It is well known that the city of culture ran into serious cash flow problems only weeks before it opened in January 2014. Internal documents from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, obtained by The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act 2014, disclosed that Limerick City of Culture had none of its €6 million State funding in place by the time of the official opening on 31 December. The records show the scale of Limerick City of Culture’s difficulties in drawing down funding and the uncertainty it caused for the project.

Why then did the Government plough ahead with such precarious plans? In this context, and given all that we know now about the cash flow problems in the lead-up to the launch of Limerick City of Culture last year, does the Minister find it acceptable that questions remain unanswered regarding the transferring of €150,000 to other projects as I have outlined? When will the review of Limerick City of Culture conclude and how will we be notified of its findings? Will the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht make up the €400,000 shortfall in payment?

I accept that there were difficulties initially with Limerick City of Culture. I visited it and have to say it was a tremendous success. It brought a new life to Limerick. It was fantastic to see all the public art projects. I went to see what children got involved in. It really was a great success.

Regarding the Deputy's question on the events she mentioned, during a programme of that nature there are bound to be events that do not go ahead and others come in to replace them. It was ultimately up to Limerick City of Culture to decide. The Department will carry out an evaluation and that will be published in due course. I am aware that Limerick City and County Council would wish to access further Government support and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has made no commitment in that matter.

Wildlife Protection

Michael Fitzmaurice

Question:

3. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the action she plans to take to deal effectively with the problem of the population of Asian clams at Lanesborough, County Longford, and surrounding areas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32355/15]

There is a problem with the Asian clam in Lanesborough where there is a tourism industry worth €30 million at stake. The buck is being passed from one person to another. Could the Minister confirm that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is taking full responsibility to sort out this problem and what is it doing about it?

My Department is responsible for the enforcement of the Wildlife Acts and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011), both of which prohibit the spreading of invasive species. In general, control of invasive species is a matter for landowners, and my Department carries out considerable work on the control of such species in national parks and nature reserves.

My Department does not have the resources required to extend such work into the wider countryside, or to provide dedicated funds for such work to other bodies. Control of aquatic species in rivers, lakes and canals is a complex and difficult issue, as many of the species concerned can be very difficult to detect until well established, and thereafter are persistent and may be impossible to eradicate.

I am aware of the work of Inland Fisheries Ireland on the Asian clam problem, in addition to a wide range of useful work on invasive species, especially in controlling aquatic and waterside invasive plants. I am also aware of work carried out by various bodies, including county councils, the National Roads Authority, Waterways Ireland and the National Botanic Gardens. My Department will continue to work with these and other bodies.

This is a problem on the River Shannon. My question is very straightforward and simple. Is Waterways Ireland or the National Parks and Wildlife Service responsible? My understanding is that, under articles 48 and 49 of the habitats directive, the National Parks and Wildlife Service is the main body responsible for invasive species. Can the Minister confirm that in Lanesborough, Carrick-on-Shannon, Shannonbridge and in the River Barrow, where we have a problem with the Asian clam, her Department is the main body responsible? I have mentioned fisheries bodies and Waterways Ireland. Can the Minister state clearly whether the National Parks and Wildlife Service is responsible in order that the people in the areas affected will know who to deal with? Could she respond with a simple "Yes" or "No"?

I am responsible for the enforcement of legislation, including the Wildlife Acts and the birds and natural habitats regulations of 2011, prohibiting the release or introduction of listed invasive species, or allowing them to spread. However, responsibility for the control of invasive species normally lies with the landowner. As Minister, I am not responsible for or resourced to control invasive species wherever they arise. In the case of the Asian clam in the River Shannon, it is clear that a collaborative approach involving the expertise of Inland Fisheries Ireland, the ESB and Waterways Ireland, in addition to my Department, is appropriate. That is what is happening, and Inland Fisheries Ireland is at the helm. I must stress that expert scientific advice indicates that the extermination of the clam at this stage may be virtually impossible. There is not a simple solution to this, unfortunately. It is not a problem unique to Ireland. It features across many countries where people are travelling. Species are entering unbeknown to people. In certain environments, species can become invasive because of how they breed. That is the case with the clams in the River Shannon.

We have been in contact with officials in Europe who say the National Parks and Wildlife Service would be responsible, on land or water, for the eradication of invasive species. However, the Minister has made it very clear that it is not her Department that is responsible for the Asian clam in Lanesborough. Obviously, it must be a matter for Waterways Ireland. I presume it is not a matter for the ESB. I need to determine it is not the responsibility of the Department. The Minister referred to joined-up thinking involving three separate bodies. That is great, but there has to be a captain of a ship and there has to be a captain on a football team. The Minister is saying her Department is not responsible, contrary to the advice we are receiving from Europe.

In general, the landowner is responsible for control. As with the Noxious Weeds Act, the legislation in question is complex to enforce in practice. In this case, it requires a multi-agency response, and that is what is happening. We have to work together. The problem is serious and I accept that. Some work has been done on it. Following the initial identification of the Asian clam in the hot water stretch and cut areas of Lough Ree at Lanesborough, early action was taken from a fisheries perspective by Inland Fisheries Ireland to close the fishery and erect public warning signs to reduce the threat of further spread. A detailed survey was carried out in the Lanesborough area at the top of Lough Ree involving the deployment of significant resources by Inland Fisheries Ireland. The survey results were scientifically analysed by senior scientific staff of Inland Fisheries Ireland. A trial dredge of material was completed by Waterways Ireland with assistance from Inland Fisheries Ireland. Some 2.5 tonnes of material was removed from the trial site, and this material was bagged and moved to the Inland Fisheries Ireland store in Roscommon for disposal.

We need to work together to find a solution. There are a number of agencies but none is specifically tasked with the control of invasive species. There is no dedicated funding stream, although some very good work has been done. Control measures are local in scale and, by definition, reactive. In this case, as stated, the response has to be a multi-agency one.

Seirbhísí Eitilte

Michael P. Kitt

Question:

4. D'fhiafraigh Deputy Michael P. Kitt den Aire Ealaíon, Oidhreachta agus Gaeltachta céard atá beartaithe aici maidir le haersheirbhís go dtí Oileáin Árann, an bhfuil sí sásta conradh nua aersheirbhíse a thosú; agus an ndéanfaidh sí ráiteas ina thaobh. [32429/15]

Táim ag iarraidh freagra a fháil mar gheall ar na pleananna ag an Aire chun aersheirbhís a chur ar fáil go hOileáin Árann. An gcuirfidh an tAire Stáit an tairiscint ar ceal agus an dtosnóidh sé próiseas nua chun aersheirbhís laethúil a chur ar fáil ó Aerfort Chonamara go hÁrainn? Tá an tseirbhís ann le níos mó ná 40 bliain. Is í an cheist is tábhachtaí ná an mbeidh an t-aersheirbhís ann tar éis mí Dheireadh Fómhair.

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Teachta as ucht an gceist tábhachtach seo. Mar is eol don Teachta, rinne mo Roinn athbhreithniú a choimisiúnú anuraidh ar an tseirbhís aeir i gcomhréir le rialachán an AE. Léirigh an t-athbhreithniú a rinne EY go raibh cás socheacnamaíoch ann don tseirbhís aeir. Léiríodh fosta go raibh sé riachtanach sábháiltí a bhaint amach i gcomhthéacs an mhéadaithe de 136% a bhí tagtha ar chostas na seirbhíse aeir le linn na tréimhse athbhreithnithe ó 2003 go 2013 a bhí faoi chaibidil sa tuarascáil.

Bunaithe ar mholtaí an athbhreithnithe, cuireadh próiseas tairisceana ar bun chun conradh a aontú don tseirbhís aeir don tréimhse ón 1 Deireadh Fómhair 2015 go dtí an 30 Meán Fómhair 2019. Is í an Oifig um Sholáthar Rialtais atá i mbun an phróisis tairisceana a reáchtáil thar ceann mo Roinne i gcomhréir le rialachán an AE. Tar éis measúnú a bheith déanta ar na hiarratais faoin bpróiseas tairisceana, fógraíodh an tairgeoir roghnaithe don chonradh seirbhíse aeir ar an 26 Lúnasa. Cuireadh in iúl freisin go raibh bronnadh an chonartha faoi réir chomhlíonadh tréimhse shosa deonaí de 14 lá agus nach gcuirfí conradh ar bith i gcrích go rachadh an tréimhse sosa in éag ar an 9 Meán Fómhair.

I gcomhréir le comhairle dlí a fuarthas, fógraíodh ar an 10 Meán Fómhair go raibh síneadh á chur leis an tréimhse shosa deonach go dtí an 16 Samhain. Tógadh an cinneadh seo le súil is soiléiriú a fháil maidir le hAerfort na Gaillimhe a bheith ar fáil do thréimhse an chonartha ceithre bliana ón 1 Deireadh Fómhair mar atá leagtha amach san iarraidh ar thairiscintí. Chun a chinntiú go leanfar le seirbhís aeir chuig agus ó Oileáin Árann, tá mo Roinn ag plé leis an soláthraí seirbhíse reatha chun teacht ar chomhaontú maidir le síneadh a chur leis an gconradh reatha ar feadh ceithre mhí ón 1 Deireadh Fómhair.

Is í an aidhm a bhí agam ón tús ná a chinntiú go mbeidh seirbhís aeir ann i gcónaí d'Oileáin Árann agus leanfaidh mé orm chun an aidhm sin a bhaint amach feadh mo chumais.

Mar is eol don Aire Stáit, bhí cruinniú ag Comhairle Contae na Gaillimhe inné agus níl socrú ann go mbeidh Aerfort an Chairn Mhóir ar fáil d'aon chomhlacht faoi láthair. Caithfidh an tAire Stáit a bheith soiléir faoi seo. Tá an tseirbhís aeir laethúil ann ó Aerfort na Minne á réiteach ag Aer Arann. Dúirt an tAire Stáit go mbeidh seirbhís nua ann ó mhí Dheireadh Fómhair ach gur seirbhís héileacaptair a bheidh ann ag eitilt ó Aerfort an Chairn Mhóir ar an taobh thoir de chathair na Gaillimhe. Sin iad na rudaí a chuireann imní ar mhuintir na n-oileán. D'iarr an tAire Stáit ar Aer Arann leanacht leis an tseirbhís go dtí deireadh mhí Feabhra. An bhfuil an tAire Stáit in ann a rá inniu go leanfar leis an tseirbhís ag Aer Arann go dtí mí Feabhra? Cén uair a bheidh cinneadh ar an gceist seo? Ní dóigh liom gur thug an tAire Stáit freagra dom ar an gceist a chuir mé air. An mbeidh an tseirbhís aeir ann tar éis cúpla mí eile? An mbeidh sé ann tar éis mí Dheireadh Fómhair?

Go raibh maith agat arís. Tuigim go raibh cruinniú ann inné ag Comhairle Cathrach na Gaillimhe. Mar atá a fhios ag an Teachta, tá an próiseas beo i gcónaí. Ní mise ach an OGP atá freagrach as an bpróiseas, ach tá dualgas orainn uilig maidir leis an ceangal idir an mórthír agus na hoileáin. An chúis is tábhachtaí atá rómhainn ná leanúnachas na seirbhíse aeir chuig na hoileáin agus ó na hoileáin go dtí an mórthír a choinneáil. Sin an fáth go raibh an próiseas ar siúl.

Ar dtús, shíl mé go gcoinneodh muid an conradh leis an an tseirbhís aeir atá ann faoi láthair, mar sin an cloch is mó. Ach tháinig an OGP isteach i 2014 don phróiseas úr agus sin an chéad uair a tháinig an próiseas os mo chomhair sa Roinn. Fuarthas comhairle dlí soiléir ansin ón OGP agus ón Ard-Aighne maidir leis an bpróiseas, próiseas neamhspleách atá ar siúl i gcónaí. Tá aontú déanta maidir le cúraimí agus tá aontú déanta fá choinne leanúnachais don tseirbhís do na seachtainí romhainn idir an mórthír agus na hoileáin. Níl mé in ann freagra a thabhairt faoi láthair maidir le cén bealach a thógfaimid anois. Táim ag iarraidh spás agus am a thabhairt do m'oifigigh agus an OGP leis an gcinneadh sin a socrú.

An raibh cainteanna ag an Aire Stáit le Aer Arann nó an raibh cainteanna ag oifigigh na Roinne leis maidir le leanúnachas sa tseirbhís seo? Mar is eol don Aire Stáit, tá an tseirbhís aeir seo an-tábhachtach mar gheall ar chúrsaí oideachais, sláinte, spóirt, gnó agus gach seirbhís eile atá ar fáil. Caithfimid freagra a fháil ar an gceist seo go luath. An freagra a thug an tAire Stáit don Teachta Derek Nolan ná go raibh costas níos mó ann anois don tseirbhís aeir. Dúirt sé go raibh ardú 136% ann le deich mbliana anuas.

Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an tAire Stáit ag plé le leanúnachas, cinnteacht agus minicíocht do na daoine ar na hoileáin maidir leis an tseirbhís seo. Níl aon pholasaí fadtéarmach ann. Níl aon rud ráite ag an Aire Stáit faoi sin. Tá daoine ag rá nach mbeidh seirbhís ann tar éis cúpla seachtain eile agus go mbeidh deireadh leis an tseirbhís aeir atá ann. Deir cinnlínte sna nuachtáin: "Minister is urged to clarify Aran Islands air service row." Caithfidh an tAire Stáit a bheith soiléir faoi seo mar tá an t-easpa soiléireachta ag cur imní ar mhuintir na n-oiléan.

Bhí plé idir Aer Arann agus na daoine ag plé leis an bpróiseas. Tuigim na deacrachtaí atá ann, go háirithe do na sealbhóirí éagsúla, mar shampla iad siúd atá i gceannasaíocht ar na hoileáin, iarratasóirí ag cur isteach tairiscintí agus Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe. Tá díospóireacht tábhachtach ar siúl agus tuigim na deacrachtaí atá ag baint leis sin.

Arís, níl mise freagrach as an bpróiseas agus sin an fhadhb atá agam. Tá an próiseas neamhspleách agus tá an OGP freagrach as an bpróiseas. Tá suim ag an Aire Stáit ann, ach níl mé lárnach sa phróiseas agus nílim ábalta eolas a lorg ón OGP. Ní bheidh baint agam leis an bpróiseas. Táim ag iarraidh spás agus am a thabhairt don díospóireacht atá ar siúl faoi láthair idir an OGP, an Ard-Aighne agus Oifig an Phríomh-Aturnae Stáit agus oifigigh mo Roinne. Feicim na deacrachtaí atá ann maidir leis an am gairid atá ann idir seo agus an Chéadaoin seo chugainn, lá deiridh an chonartha reatha.

Turbary Rights

Michael Fitzmaurice

Question:

5. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if she will give an undertaking that the proposed closure of natural heritage area bogs will not proceed until and unless alternative turf-cutting locations have been provided for those who are affected by the closure but who wish to continue their turf-cutting tradition; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32357/15]

In light of the fact that there are probably six to seven months, at most, left in the present Government's term of office, will the Minister give an undertaking that the closure of parts or all of the natural heritage area, NHA, bogs around the country proposed for the beginning of 2017 will not proceed unless alternative turf-cutting locations have been provided? We have seen the ongoing debacle with the so-called special areas of conservation, or SACs. Could common sense prevail so that those who want to continue exercising their right to cut turf are allowed to do so until relocation sites beside, near or on part of a bog are available?

Since the Government came into office, huge efforts have been made to solve the issue of the protection of Ireland's raised bog SACs within the framework of the EU habitats directive. These have included intense and ongoing engagement with turf cutting interests, farmers, non-governmental organisations and the European Commission.

Notwithstanding the complexity involved, progress in relocating turf cutters to non-designated bogs has been achieved in a number of cases. Potential relocation sites have been identified for each of the raised bog SACs where relocation may be required. When relocation sites have been assessed as suitable, my Department has been seeking expressions of interest from turf cutters with a view to them moving to these sites.

The report entitled Review of the Raised Bog Natural Heritage Area Network, published in January 2014, provides detail on future arrangements regarding turf cutting on each of the 75 current raised bog natural heritage areas. The review has concluded that Ireland could more effectively achieve conservation of threatened raised bog habitat through focused protection and restoration of a reconfigured network. This will entail the phasing out of turf-cutting on 36 natural heritage areas by 1 January 2017, including parts of seven sites, and the de-designation of 46 natural heritage areas, including parts of seven sites. The review was undertaken in the context of a commitment in the programme for Government and ensuring compliance with EU law relating to turf extraction within raised bog SACs and natural heritage areas.

The compensation scheme for cessation of turf cutting has been extended to landowners and turbary right holders affected by the curtailment of turf cutting in raised bog natural heritage areas. A total of 216 applications have been received from applicants from these sites. Eleven applicants have expressed an interest in relocating to a non-designated bog.

My Department, together with Bord na Móna, is identifying and assessing sites that may be suitable as relocation sites for turf cutters from these bogs. A number of natural heritage area sites which are scheduled for de-designation may be suitable. Officials from my Department are continuing to work with turf cutters on relocation options for the natural heritage areas on which turf cutting is being phased out.

First, the Minister should tell whoever wrote that reply for her that one so-called SAC site in the country is all that has ever been sorted, and part of another one in Carrownagappul in Mountbellew. The Minister can tell them that, if they do not happen to know it themselves.

Second, I am not talking about so-called special areas of conservation. I am talking about natural heritage areas. We all know that some bogs are to be de-designated, but the Minister should bear one thing in mind. I have been hearing about legislation for a full year, yet every time I ask the National Parks and Wildlife Service about this legislation it seems to be further and further away. Can the Minister confirm when that legislation will be introduced for de-designation of the 45 bogs she mentioned?

One question has been evaded every time I ask it. We know that some people will take compensation, which is their right. The Minister said that 11 people were seeking relocation. However, the Minister can tell the person who wrote the reply that most people are still cutting in NHAs because they are not being asked to come off them until the beginning of 2017.

Can the Minister say to those people who want to continue with their tradition, and who are willing to say they will go down the road a mile or up the road a mile or go together in one corner of a bog, that they will not be banned from cutting their turf until the Department, which has basically done nothing with regard to relocation for 15 or 16 years, has a new site for them to cut turf on or congregate them together in the bog? That is all they are asking; they are not saying anything else.

As I said in my reply, the review of the raised bog natural heritage area network was published in January 2014. It sets out the future arrangements for turf cutting on each of the 75 current raised bogs. There has been consultation on this review and stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide their views. Some people will have to stop cutting on the natural heritage areas from 2017. We have already opened our compensation scheme for those people, and a number of people have taken this up. Others will be told that their bogs are to be de-designated. This happened as a result of a substantial amount of work undertaken to ensure more focused protection. We will designate new natural heritage area bogs, but my Department has given a commitment that these will be mainly from State bogs.

Overall, the approach taken between special areas of conservation and natural heritage areas has been very different. We have taken a very balanced approach with regard to natural heritage areas. We have consulted, published a review and set out proposals. People who will be asked to stop cutting have been given a lead-in time until 2017. Good progress has been made when people engage. I encourage people to engage with my Department and officials because I have a good example of where engagement works out well. People came together in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, worked together, adopted a co-operative approach and found a solution that they are very happy with.

To bring the Minister up to speed on that, I was at the back at Lough Sheelin bog for the search. The Minister mentioned 1 January 2014, but we are heading for 1 January 2016. This has been going on for two years and no legislation has been introduced yet. Some people in the National Parks and Wildlife Service, whom I do not blame, have admitted openly that no de-designation legislation has been introduced. This is a worry. People around the country are worried. Before the election comes around, the Minister is saying that the Government is not rowing back on the bogs it says will be closed on 1 January 2017, and I take that point.

What I am saying is that there is a group of natural heritage areas that are already de-designated. We are already engaging with the people who will have to stop cutting by 2017, and we have opened a compensation scheme to them. Some designated sites will be de-designated and we will designate new sites that will be mainly on State lands. We are trying to ensure that there will be a good sample of natural heritage area bogs and that the impact on people is kept to a minimum. In fairness, there has been widespread acceptance that this is a good way forward.

In respect of the assistance given, I was involved in the process in Cavan and I know that the Deputy met me on one occasion. A lot of work took place after that meeting; my officials engaged with turf cutters in Cavan and we found a solution. Many people are involved, and I know Deputies Connaughton and Feighan and a number of other Deputies have been involved in trying to find a solution. That is what it is about. It is about working together to find the right solution, hearing people's views and getting the right result at the end of the day.

Top
Share