I welcome the Minister to the House. Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the time limits for the debate are as follows: 15 minutes for the Minister's speech, 12 minutes for the proposer of the motion, eight minutes for the speech of any other Senator and five minutes for the proposer to reply.
Death of Member. - Protection of the Environment: Motion.
I move:
In the light of Bord Pleanála's decision to refuse permission for the Luggala Interpretative Centre in County Wicklow, Seanad Éireann calls on the Government:
(a) to abandon plans for similarly controversial and undesirable Interpretative Centres e.g. Mullaghmore;
(b) to prevent future similar developments in environmentally sensitive areas;
(c) to safeguard areas of unique scientific, historical and scenic significance;
(d) to take steps to limit land-fill disposal of refuse; and
(e) to reduce water abstraction from rivers and lakes when there is potential for environmental damage.
The Progressive Democrats Party has deliberately tabled this important motion in the Seanad in a bid to force the Government to come off the fence and spell out its policy in relation to the sorry mess of interpretative centre development in this country over the past number of years. We believe it is absolutely disgraceful that this Fine Gael/Labour/Democratic Left Government cannot yet make up its mind and is thereby compounding the shameful performance of its predecessor, the Fianna Fáil/Labour Government.
Few could imagine that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, who has overall responsibility for Government policy on heritage matters and has now been in office for more than two years, has as yet failed to grasp the nettle in relation to the interpretative centres. It is quite clear that this Government, in common with its predecessor, has not got the guts to come out and make a clearcut decision and hopes instead that An Bord Pleanála or the courts will resolve the matter for it.
However, this is not leadership, rather political cowardice. After all, the current programme for Government makes clear that the future of the controversial centres at Luggala, Mullaghmore and the Boyne Valley will be decided by the Government. However, it continues to prevaricate. On 15 February, the Minister, Deputy Higgins, informed my colleague in the Dáil, Deputy Quill, that he would be bringing recommendations to Government on this matter in the next few weeks. That is over a month ago and we are still waiting for a decision.
There are many salutary lessons arising from this entire controversy, the most important of which is that State agencies, such as the Office of Public Works, cannot ride roughshod over the general community. This has been a very sorry and disgraceful episode in the history of the Office of Public Works. It is now reaping the whirlwind for its outrageously arrogant and dictatorial behaviour. We should not overlook the complicity of its political masters, who presided over the Office of Public Works at various stages in recent years and who not only condoned but abetted its carry on.
I make this criticism while being fully aware of the outstanding work being done by the Office of Public Works in other aspects of protecting and enhancing this country's natural and built heritage. Its work on the Grand Canal, for example, is outstanding. There are also many other Office of Public Works operations throughout the country which are a testament to its work. However, it came up with a stubborn, one-sided and ultimately self-destructive policy stance on the matter of these interpretative centres, which is most regrettable.
It would appear that the Office of Public Works became blinded and obsessed by the prospect of drawing down so called free money from Brussels. This became the primary motivation, rather than a considered approach to the most appropriate, sensitive and acceptable interpretative centres which should be developed at these key sites. The unacceptability of the Office of Public Works's behaviour is borne out by the fact, for example, that just two days after a group of objectors were granted a right to judicial review in the courts in autumn 1992 against the proposed Burren interpretative centre at Mullaghmore, it began excavation work on the site.
It was a clear case of the Office of Public Works snubbing not only the concerned environmentalists who opposed the scarring of the Burren landscape, but also the courts. There have been many landmark developments along the way, which will, in time, be seen as major turning points in the assertion of community rights and the vindication of the need for openness and accountability by all State agencies. The May 1993 Supreme Court judgment that the interpretative centres did require planning permission and the finding that all State bodies would henceforth have to comply with planning law, just like everyone else, was most important. In an era when openness and accountability have become political clichés, this was a decision which gives these laudable objectives real teeth and effect. It means that never again can the Office of Public Works behave in such a cavalier fashion.
The question remains of how to resolve the expensive mess at the Burren, Luggala and in the Boyne Valley. Luggala is the most straightforward case in that An Bord Pleanála has eventually vindicated proper planning and environmental concerns by refusing permission. This has had many serious implications. It means that the works carried out to date are now illegal and there must be a full reinstatement of the site to its former tree-planted state. Approximately £1.6 million has been wasted.
The madness of the siting of the Wicklow interpretative centre at Luggala, above the village of Roundwood, is plain to anybody who visits the area. To any objective person it is obvious that Roundwood is the correct and logical venue for an interpretative centre. Hopefully, when this whole sorry mess is resolved the village will get an appropriate centre. The irresponsibility of the choice in this case is underlined by the fact that Roundwood village requires a sewage treatment plant, yet the Office of Public Works proposed to build a separate sewage treatment plant above the village at Luggala which would not at all benefit the village. This in an area where some of the water supply for the greater Dublin area originates. What an example of resource mismanagement.
In the case of Mullaghmore a decision by Clare County Council on the Office of Public Works's planning application for the development is long overdue. It has been put on ice in a neat piece of behind the scenes political manoeuvring involving the county council, the Office of Public Works and the Minister. The planning process has been deliberately dragged out by the process of the county council referring questions on the project to the Office of Public Works and the Office of Public Works failing to furnish its responses. The proper decision which must be taken in Mullaghmore is similar to that at Luggala — abandon it.
It is clear that if Clare County Council eventually decides to grant permission it will be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. The expert view is that the grounds for refusal by An Bord Pleanála are even more compelling at Mullaghmore than at Luggala, particularly because of the unacceptable impact on such a sensitive environment of such a project. Of course, the question will also arise of the waste of perhaps £1.5 million in the works already carried out there, allied to the cost of removing them. It means a scandalous waste of well in excess of £3 million given the money already spent and the cost of restoring these sensitive locations to their former states.
The question arises of whether the EU authorities will look for the return of this money by the Irish Exchequer. Not only will we suffer the waste of this money but we may have to return an equivalent amount to Brussels. I want the Government to clarify the attitude of the EU Commission on this matter.
The centre at the Boyne Valley adds to the problems although there are a number of different factors involved here. That centre is now almost complete and approximately £1.7 million has been spent to date. Furthermore, the centre has planning permission, upheld on appeal by An Bord Pleanála. The Boyne Valley Trust is continuing to campaign to have the project reversed and located at a more suitable venue, or, at the very least, that the centre being built be significantly modified with the removal of the bridge and minibus elements.
The Taoiseach has previously indicated his opposition to the present location and has expressed his support for the Boyne Valley Trust. It will be interesting to see what the Government decides to do in the case of this interpretative centre.
There are many lessons to learn from this sorry saga and I hope we will never again see the pursuit of such a divisive, damaging and wasteful policy by any State agency. The requirement that all State agencies must comply with planning law is most welcome and long overdue. At a time when there are so many demands for openness and accountability this is an essential precondition to ensure this.
It is also regrettable that local communities have been so seriously divided by this pre-emptive policy of the Office of Public Works which had the support of Fianna Fáil in Government. Let us all hope that the lessons will be learned and the financial cost and the appalling waste of public money on such a misguided undemocratic policy can be contained as much as possible.
I second the motion and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. When we discuss matters such as these we are faced with a fundamental conflict between what are perceived as local needs, national needs and, in some instances, international considerations, as the quality of the environment in the areas is of international stature. We are asked to balance pressing local needs and the need for jobs in a locality with the preservation of the environment and the jobs that can flow from that preservation.
A local authority or community may decide on the need for an interpretative centre, but to proceed with the work before the planning process is completed or the courts have made their judgment is quite another matter. Was it the case with Mullaghmore or Luggala that somebody thought if they lobbed in over £1 million in each case it would put the gun to the head of the planning authorities?
That is an outrageous statement which is without foundation. The Senator should be asked to withdraw it.
Senator Daly will have his chance to reply to the question in due course. I do not deny him that right; he should not deny me the right to speak on it.
Speak away. The Senator is making stupid allegations.
Would people suggest to a planning authority that they would cynically leave a scar on the landscape to ensure they got the decision they wanted?
Rubbish.
It is like someone building a house in the expectation that no planning authority would tell them to knock it down. That has happened, as Senator Daly knows.
They took one down in Ennis.
In the case of these centres the potential environmental consequences are so serious that no risks can be taken. In those circumstances I suggest that the precautionary principle should operate, in other words, we begin by assuming the potential for damage and until the case is proven otherwise the development does not proceed.
I am not against interpretative centres per se. There are good examples of how they can be done properly — Glenveagh National Park, the Céide Fields and the centre at Portmagee on Valentia Island for the Skelligs are all excellent. The do not intrude on the landscape and do not create an environmental problem. There are areas, however, where there is potential for damage. The precautionary principle should apply to interpretative centres, but it must apply to the two latter aspects of the motion referring to landfill and water abstraction from our lakes and rivers.
The Operational Programme for Environmental Services makes interesting reading. Paragraph 3.6 states:
Under the Operational Programme emphasis will continue to be placed on supporting activities, including tourism and natural resource based development, which depend on the presence of high environmental quality and on the need to underpin regional and local rural as well as urban development.
It goes on to say that included would be "... investment in infrastructure aimed at environmental protection in accordance with the principles of sustainable development and linked to regional development". We have heard a lot about sustainable development and we recently agreed a proposal to establish a Joint Committee on Sustainable Development.
The programme goes on to state:
The European Union's fifth programme of policy and action on the environment towards sustainability, adopted in June 1992, has given a new impetus to environmental protection and natural resource management to meet the additional burdens imposed by increased economic activity on completion of the Single Market.
There are a lot of fine words of that nature in this document, but what are we doing to support these fine words in practice? What are we doing to protect the environment? We are using public moneys, and possibly Structural Funds, with total disregard for the environment. There are two concrete cases occurring in my own area which have national significance and where the needs of the local community contradict those of the national need. One is the proposal to have a landfill dump in Kill in County Kildare. Outside of the greater Dublin area, we are increasingly being asked to bear the environmental cost which the Dublin county councils and corporation are not prepared to take. We are being asked to provide Dublin with clean, fresh water in substantial quantities, take away its waste and put it in a hole in the ground in Kill, a village that has won awards for its tidiness. There is a stream from the proposed site leading into the River Liffey and a water pipe under the site carrying fresh water into Dublin. This site is in the middle of the bloodstock industry and beside an international centre of repute to which people come from all over the world to buy Irish thoroughbreds.
People should not be subjected to that type of environmental vandalism or be compelled to go to the High Court to seek redress, although I wish them well in that effort. They have got little support in their fight outside their own community or concerned citizens around the country. Even the interests of the wider society dictate that this development should not proceed.
Water is a resource of immense environmental value. We are taking 53 million gallons a day out of the River Liffey for Dublin and planning permission has been given to increase this amount to 70 million gallons. There is also a proposal to go up to 100 million gallons and I heard one that suggested we go to 120 million gallons. The ESB in Poulaphouca published a report which shows the potential for environmental damage. The angling clubs and farmers along the Liffey are aware of the potential for damage. We are talking about disturbing a complete ecosystem because nobody will pay. If one looks through this report carefully, one will find out about the amount of water that is lost through the system, and nobody bothers about this. Reference is also made to the pipes which carry the water. Will we ever use the Structural Funds to improve the system so that we do not have to take so much water out of the Liffey? In my view, the answer to that question is no. As long as it is convenient and easy to do it in this way, the damaging of this environmental resource will not really matter. Somebody somewhere will have to put up their hands and say "No" and question why it is regarded as appropriate to spend £18 million on fisheries under the operational programme for tourism while at the same time destroying the resources into which we are meant to be putting this amount.
I conclude by quoting from a Greenpeace document which underlines what I am talking about. Planet Earth is 4,600 million years old and it compares that with a person of 46 years of age. It goes on to say that
Dinosaurs and the great reptiles did not appear until one year ago when the planet was 45. Mammals arrived eight months ago. In the middle of last week, human like apes evolved into ape like humans and at the weekend, the last Ice Age enveloped the Earth. Modern humans have been around for four hours in that 46 years of age. During the last hour, we discovered agriculture. The Industrial Revolution began a minute ago and during those 60 seconds of biological time, humans have made a rubbish tip of paradise.
That is what we are doing and that is why this motion is so important. Unless somebody somewhere puts up their hands and says "Stop", we will not be waiting for Judgment Day or Armageddon, we will impose it upon ourselves. We will not have a planet left at the rate we are going.
Ar a gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom a rá gur iarr an tAire Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta, an Teachta M. Higgins, orm leathscéal a ghabháil thar a cheann leis an Seanad toisc nach bhfuil ar a chumas bheith anseo tráthnóna chun páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht ar an rún tábhachtach seo. Tá fhios ag Seanadóirí, ní foláir, go bhfuil sé san Airgintín leis an Uachtarán atá ar chuairt Stáit ar an tír sin.
Before I begin, I would like to say that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht has asked me to convey to the House his apology for his inability to be here tonight to speak on the motion. I am sure the Members know that the Minister is accompanying the President on her State visit to Argentina.
As regards the motion itself, I would like to thank Senator Dardis and Senator Honan for having raised these important matters and I commend them for once again drawing the attention of this House and the Government to the need to protect our natural environment. Some of the matters referred to in the motion are outside the remit of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and while I will be adverting to them in my speech, Senators will understand if I focus primarily on the issues referred to in the first three paragraphs of the motion.
I think it is fair to say that the proposals to develop visitor centres at a number of our national parks and other locations have led to an unprecedented level of controversy at local, national and indeed, international level. Very few, if any, other environmental issues in recent years have led to such controversy. The cohesiveness of local communities has been damaged and there is widespread disenchantment with central government among both the supporters and opponents of the various developments. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this whole debate is the fact that the impression has been created both at home and abroad that this State and its agencies are not serious about nature conservation and environmental protection. I am confident that this debate this evening will contribute to a better appreciation among the public of the concern of Members of the Oireachtas for the preservation of our natural heritage.
I am sure that Senators are familiar with the background to the proposals for visitor centres in the Wicklow National Park, the Burren National Park and the Boyne valley. In the case of the Burren and Wicklow National Parks, the proposals to develop visitor centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala each evolved as part of a strategy to improve the facilities on offer to visitors and in particular to provide a way for visitors to be aware of what each national park had to offer.
The proposals in relation to the Boyne Valley Visitor Centre emerged in a somewhat different way. They arose from the work of a committee established under the aegis of the Royal Irish Academy to examine how best the wealth of monuments in the Boyne Valley archaeological area should be managed. The Boyne Valley is, of course, an area of great archaeological importance and contains many of our most famous national monuments, including the passage tombs at Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth. It was designated a world heritage site by UNESCO in 1993 and good visitor management is one of the issues to be addressed in the regular reviews of the designation carried out by world experts acting for UNESCO.
The Office of Public Works, as the State agency charged with the protection of our heritage, was the body which undertook these projects. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht has frequently expressed his admiration for the work of the Office of Public Works in the conservation of our natural and built heritage. I fully endorse these sentiments. The Office of Public Works has carried out very sensitive work throughout the country, particularly at our national monuments, to preserve them and to make them more accessible to the public. I could instance monuments well known to every Senator, such as the Rock of Cashel, Clonmacnoise, Glendalough and Newgrange, which I have already mentioned. I am very familiar with the fine job done at Ennis Friary in my own constituency and I am sure that each Senator could cite examples in their own areas.
The proposals in relation to the Wicklow National Park Visitor Centre and the Burren National Park Visitor Centre must be seen in the context of the Office of Public Works' overall remit to manage our heritage on our behalf. Plans for these centres began to take shape in the late 1980s and work began on the different sites in the early 1990s. Senator Dardis said works were commenced at Mullaghmore in advance of planning permission in order to preempt the planning authority——
Continued, not commenced.
I thought the Senator said commenced. Between 1963, when the Planning Act was passed, and 1993, when the Supreme Court made its decision, the understanding was that State authorities were not bound to seek planning permission. In fact, there was a High Court decision to that effect as well. Various legal challenges were mounted, particularly in relation to the Burren and Wicklow proposals, and on 12 February 1993 the High Court decided that the Commissioners of Public Works did not have powers to build and manage developments and that planning permission, in addition to planning consultation, was necessary for State developments. A previous High Court decision had held that consultation only was required. In response to these decisions, the then Government introduced legislation which was enacted as the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993, which ensured that the Commissioners of Public Works had the necessary powers to carry out development projects. In addition, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court that aspect of the High Court decision which related to the requirement for planning permission.
The Supreme Court ruled in May 1993 that the State was not exempt from the requirements to seek full planning permission and, in the light of this, the then Government decided in June 1993 that a process of public consultation should be conducted by the Office of Public Works, following which the Minister of State in charge of that Office would decide the course of action to be taken. At the conclusion of this consultation process, the then Minister of State's decision was to apply for planning permission for slightly altered proposals in the three cases.
The present position in regard to the various applications for planning permission is as follows. In the Boyne Valley planning permission was granted by Meath County Council and upheld by An Bord Pleanála; at Luggala planning permission was granted by Wicklow County Council but rejected by An Bord Pleanála; and at Mullaghmore a decision has not yet been made by Clare County Council on the planning application. They recently sought clarification on some points from the Office of Public Works but a reply has been deferred as the general issue is awaiting Government decision.
In their motion before the Seanad tonight, Senators Dardis and Honan call on the Government to abandon its plans in relation to centres such as Mullaghmore. I am sure that Senators will be aware that the policy agreement between the three parties forming the present Government states: "The future of the proposed Interpretative Centres at Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley will be a matter for decision by the incoming Government."
Accordingly, it was a matter for the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, as Minister responsible for heritage matters, to bring recommendations in relation to each of the three centres to Government. I understand the Minister has now completed his examination of the matter and that he expects the Government will make its decision in the next few weeks. Senators will appreciate it would be inappropriate for me to divulge the precise details regarding the course of action being proposed by the Minister. Suffice it to say that each case will be taken on its merits and careful consideration will be given to all of the validly held viewpoints in regard to these centres. I have no doubt but that the Government will also take cognisance of the views expressed in the Seanad tonight.
Senators Dardis and Honan call for the prevention of future developments in environmentally sensitive areas and, in regard to this. I would point out that valuable lessons have been learned by everyone involved in these controversies. Our planning process has been strengthened by the Supreme Court's decision that developments by State bodies now require planning permission. This introduces the concept of transparency into such developments and I for one welcome this. It is right that proposals emanating from Government and State bodies should be open to scrutiny and that local authorities should be allowed to analyse proposals which affect their areas. By the same token, the importance of local consultation has been recognised. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is particularly insistent that, as part of the preparatory work on future developments in the heritage area, meaningful local consultations take place with as wide a range of individuals and groups in the areas affected by proposals as is possible. This commitment to transparency and consultation is indicative, I believe, of the commitment to open government which underpins the programme for A Government of Renewal.
I welcome the Senators' call for a safeguarding of areas of unique scientific, historical and scenic significance. We are fortunate in this country to have a relatively unspoilt natural heritage and we have a responsibility to protect this heritage and to pass it on to the next generation. The State has in recent years taken considerable steps to conserve areas of particular scenic and scientific interest by establishing national parks and nature reserves. We have designated refuges for our animal life and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is in the process of preparing new legislation to strengthen the protection for such sites and, indeed, for wildlife in general. The Minister intends also to enact measures in the near future to give effect in this country to the European Union's Habitats Directive which will lead to the creation of a network of protected sites throughout the member states which will be known as "Special Areas of Conservation". It is expected that there will be about 300 such areas in this country.
Legislation is also being prepared for the establishment, protection and management of national parks, historic parks and other areas of outstanding scenic and heritage importance. The protection of the environment and economic development are both essential goals. The key challenge now is to achieve both through sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is accepted at a global level, as well as being an objective of EU policy, and is reaffirmed in the Government's programme. Nature conservation is fundamental to sustainable development Development will not be sustainable unless biological diversity is conserved.
The conservation of our national heritage is not solely a matter for Government, nor any one sector of Government, but involves non-governmental organisations, local authorities, the universities and voluntary sector. Nature conservation is necessary not only because of the intrinsic and other values of biological diversity, but because our natural heritage enriches the quality of all our lives, whether we are conscious of this or not. Nature conservation is for the benefit of us all and there is an onus on us to share the responsibilities involved. The conservation of biological diversity is the common concern of humankind. Nature conservation is not an exclusive national affair but must also be addressed by international action, including educational actions to increase peoples' awareness of natural heritage.
I should point out to Senators that 1995 is European Nature Conservation Year and this country is taking an active role in promoting the aims associated with the year. The theme across Europe for this campaign is "Nature Outside Protected Areas". While the identification and protection of key areas and sites was an essential first step in conserving that natural heritage, it will not be enough. Nature conservation must move out into the broader countryside. The conservation of biological diversity in the general environment can be achieved through two complementary approaches, namely, through generic measures such as for example the rural environmental protection scheme, or REPS for short, and from the bottom upwards through specific action plans for species and habitats. Put simply, this means that it can no longer be sufficient just to look upon conservation as a matter which exists only within the confines of parks and other protected areas, nor is it something to be left solely in the hands of "experts" and Governments. Instead, we have to remind ourselves that nature is something that surrounds us all, whether we are in the countryside or in cities and towns.
I would like to move on now to the final paragraphs of the motion, which are more properly within the remit of the Minister for the Environment. The motion refers also to the need to limit quantities of waste going to landfill. This is fully consistent with the objective of the Government's recycling strategy to direct 20 per cent of waste volumes from landfill, through increased recycling, by the year 1999. Waste management is one of the most difficult environmental challenges of our time. Past solutions for the management of Irish wastes concentrated almost exclusively on the consignment of waste to landfill sites. In Ireland almost 93 per cent of all municipal waste is treated in this way. Recycling has, however, been increasing and some 7 per cent of all household and commercial waste is now recycled.
Much more stringent control is now being applied to landfill of wastes compared to previously. Since 1990, all significant new landfill development has been subject to environmental impact assessment. Landfill guidelines are being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency and it is intended that the new Waste Bill, shortly to be published, will provide for leasing of all landfills by the agency. An important new directive on landfill has recently been approved by the EU. Under this, new landfills will have to be provided with adequate control of leachate and methane gas emissions and be subject to regular monitoring of environmental impacts on the water, air and environment. In addition site services, reception areas for recyclables, a control house and weighbridge will have to be provided. The standards laid down in the new directive will apply to new landfills immediately following its adoption. Existing landfills will have to be upgraded to meet the new standards required within 10 years or otherwise they will close down.
Many of our existing landfill sites are quite small. Given the increased costs which will be applied as a result of the new requirements, a considerable degree of rationalisation of the overall network will be required. The Government's recycling strategy sets specific, challenging targets which will provide for the diversion of a significant volume of waste away from landfill. In overall terms, a target of 20 per cent of combined household and commercial waste is set to be recycled by 1999 as compared to the present diversion rate of some 7 per cent.
A comprehensive waste management framework for Ireland is being developed by the Minister for the Environment. This will incorporate policy, legislative, infrastructure and other management measures. Support for the application of the framework will come through the waste management sub-programme of the Operations Programme for Environmental Services. That programme provides that co-financing of some £30 million will be made available to support waste planning and the provision of infrastructure related to recovery and recycling of waste. The Minister for the Environment also hopes to publish in the near future a comprehensive Waste Bill which will incorporate appropriate provisions to regulate the generation, movement, management and, where necessary, disposal of waste.
With regard to the last item in the motion, I am advised that water abstraction in many European and international areas exceeds the natural recharge of groundwater and surface water resources: such problems with maintaining quantity are particularly severe in coastal and island areas of the southern parts of the European Union. Long term over-exploitation results in reduction of water supply for the catchment areas of aquatic ecosystems such as streams and wetlands. Internationally there are many examples of severe depletion of river catchment and lake systems leading to shortages and ecological damage and, indeed, to conflicts between nations.
We were abundantly supplied with water resources with the climate and level of rainfall that we have in Ireland. Some 31,000 litres of surface water per capita per day are available. This is four times that of the most densely populated European countries. In general there is little evidence of environmental damage arising due to abstractions from our rivers or lakes.
Given the ongoing need to provide new and improved public water supply schemes, both to ensure compliance with the strict EU drinking water standards and to meet ongoing demand, there is unquestionably a challenge facing us to ensure that the water resources of our lakes and rivers are maintained. It has been estimated that total fresh water abstractions amount to 3 million cubic metres per day, of which about one third is for public supplies, one quarter each for industry and thermal power generation, and the remainder for agriculture and rural domestic supplies.
Local authorities are the main fresh water abstractors in Ireland and there are controls on their activities in this regard. When a sanitary authority wants to abstract water for the purpose of providing, increasing or extending a supply of water, a statutory control procedure is provided for under the Water Supplies Act, 1942 whereby affected persons must be notified. Where objections are made and not withdrawn, an application for a provisional order has to be made to the Minister for the Environment. The Minister, before making a provisional order in accordance with the application, is obliged to cause to be held a local inquiry into the application. All relevant concerns, including environmental aspects, can be raised at this inquiry.
In addition the powers available to local authorities under the Water Pollution Acts, 1977 and 1990, are extensive and include a requirement on each local authority, under section 9 of the Water Pollution Act, 1977, to establish and keep a register of certain abstractions from waters in its functional area. The Water Pollution Act, 1990, in addition, has provided local authorities with the power to require the submission to them of specified particulars of abstractions from any person who is abstracting water from any waters in its functional area.
Water is an economic resource, with many competing demands and uses. There are many uses to be satisfied, such as a source for drinking water, for fishing, for navigation, for sustaining livestock, as an ecosystem, etc., and there are corresponding rights which have to be borne in mind. Conflicts between uses can arise. Water management is a complex issue, because water is both an economic and environmental resource. Existing public policies adequately ensure the rational management of water abstraction in Ireland. We will however be giving close attention to the new requirements in this area, such as those which may emerge at EU level.
In conclusion, I again thank Senators Dardis and Honan for raising these issues for discussion this evening. I can assure them that I will bring their views to the attention of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht on his return from South America. I know that he would like to see the interpretative centre controversy settled as speedily as possible but he appreciates too the need for calm deliberation in coming to decisions on such issues and for the creation of a suitable environment for consensus to be built. As have I stated publicly, the Minister has completed his review of the various cases and he expects that there will be a Government decision before long.
I have a personal interest in this matter and I was disappointed by Senator Honan's reference to Clare County Council's planning department which I know to be very fair and honest. If compared with any of the other county councils it has the fewest number of section 4s in the entire west coast. Planning in County Clare is rigidly controlled and when this whole matter arose originally I was one of the people who advocated that a full planning application should be made to Clare County Council for this proposal. Senator Honan is a fellow Clare person and I am sure she understands my concern that the impression could be given in this debate that Clare County Council does not look after its planning responsibilities correctly.
I thank all Senators for their contributions and I will listen in anticipation to the other contributions.
I agree and find little objection to aspects of tonight's motion. It is Fianna Fáil's wish and mine that we abide by decisions of An Bord Pleanála. When a discharge licence was issued for effluent for the Mullaghmore centre, the application was appealed to An Bord Pleanála, which upheld Clare County Council's decision. However, I cannot accept parts (a) and (b) of the motion, to abandon some centres such as Mullaghmore and to "prevent future similar developments in environmentally sensitive areas". If one was to follow the line put forward by the Progressive Democrats in this regard, one could defeat the purpose which the motion is intended to advance.
The national parks and wildlife service of the Office of Public Works is the State authority charged with the protection and conservation of nature in Ireland. It has the further role of providing educational information on nature, wildlife, flora and fauna. As most Members know, the national parks concept is recognised by the United Nations and is known as category II of protected areas. It fulfils the crucial role of protecting important collections and ecosystems internationally. National parks provide a conservation mechanism for these important sites and they allow public access for recreational enjoyment, inspiration, educational facilities and research. Many national parks throughout the world have succeeded in doing this in a balanced way.
I want to put on the record the achievements of the Commissioners of Public Works in the development of some of the national parks, which I do not need to mention. We constantly hear about Mullaghmore and Luggala, but we rarely hear of the important work being done by the Commissioners of Public Works in the Killarney National Park, where the work done in the interpretative centre in Muckross House has been the central focal point of conservation in the most scenic part of Ireland. It has also been the focal point of a major economic off-spin from such developments, while at the same time managing, balancing, taking care of and conserving some of our most valuable areas of habitat. We should also put on the record the work done in other parks, such as the Connemara National Park.
The interpretative centres in the parks being developed have been in or adjacent to the parks. A central function of any park, whether a national or an international one, is the interpretative centre. A survey was done of approximately 60 parks in Europe and 50 had interpretative centres located in or closely adjacent to the parks.
The importance of the designation of national parks is vital for the long term conservation and protection of some of our important habitats. The provision of the interpretative centres alongside that is equally important for the enjoyment of people who wish to visit these areas and who would not be familiar with their details, as a process of education and to create an awareness of the importance of their preservation and conservation. Anyone who has seen the large numbers of young people who have visited Killarney National Park, Glenveagh in Donegal or Connemara National Park will be impressed with the level of interest, awareness, concern and care which these young people take afterwards, not only in protecting and conserving these important habitats, but in their educational process.
People want to visit important scenic areas, such as the Burren region, the Wicklow mountains or areas involved in peatland conservation, such as the Clara bog in Offaly, where work is presently being undertaken by the various peatland organisations and by the Commissioners of Public Works. We must get away from the type of conservation elitism which is shared by a small number of people in this country who seem to think these areas are their preserves and who want to deny access to anyone else other than their friends.
I deplore the way in which the proposal for Mullaghmore was misrepresented by professional people who knew better and who tried to tell people that the centre for the national park in the Burren was being built on Mullaghmore mountain. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was being constructed in a disused quarry from which gravel had been excavated for years and the second part of that site was a green field site where cattle had grazed and farming had been continued for generations. There was no question of interfering with the important system of Mullaghmore mountain, although some professionals in the business took photographs on the side of Mullaghmore mountain and misrepresented the location. When I took issue with some people in this House who criticised the building of the centre at Mullaghmore, they freely admitted that they had never visited the site or seen where the project was located.
National parks have been developed throughout the world and interpretative and visitor centres have been built alongside them. This is true of the United States, Australia — where Tower Hill is one of the most important volcanic sites and its interpretative centre is on it — Cradle Mountain in Tasmania, which has approximately 150,000 visitors each year, Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and Scotland. National parks and interpretative and visitor centres throughout Europe have been built alongside the important sites. We need more time to discuss these issues.
Play has been made of the fact that there is no public support for the centre at Mullaghmore. However, it was in response to the media's suggestions that there was public opposition to Mullaghmore that a Mullaghmore support group was formed in Corofin. I can give Members an indication of the volume of support in that area of County Clare for the Mullaghmore project. Such support included all the local GAA clubs, branches of the IFA at county, executive and national level, Kilnaboy Community Development Association, Carron Community Council, where people are now flooded out of their homes — the price they pay for living in a scenic area — Corofin Development Association and Tidy Towns committee, Macra na Feirme, Muintir na Tíre, the ICA groups and the Clare Archaeological and Historical Society. All these groups and bodies not only publicly supported the Commissioners of Public Works but visited the offices of the Minister and campaigned in the House to ensure that the project proceeded.
We do not object to concerns over the Burren area. It is an important national treasure which must be conserved and protected. The best way to do this is to have an area managed, developed, conserved and interpreted by the State, with centres and facilities available for people to visit and appreciate the region. In addition, the project can run in parallel with centres in Kilfenora and other parts of the county. There is no conflict, nor should there be, between the work being undertaken on the centre at Kilfenora or the work that can be undertaken on the northern environs of the Burren at Ballyvaughan and the work that can be undertaken at Mullaghmore. Hopefully, the Government will make a speedy decision to complete the project and thereby make a valuable contribution towards the conservation and protection of one our most scenic areas.
I commend Senator Honan and Senator Dardis for moving this motion and compliment the Senators on its extent. It will provide much food for thought and room for plenty of discussion.
The need for interpretative centres is recognised by all. The location and possible impact of these centres in an area of natural beauty must be weighed carefully. While it may appear logical to place an interpretative centre in a central location, the effect this would have should not be measured in terms of a short term gain but, more importantly, in terms of the long term impact the centre will have on the social, economic and environmental life of the area. The motion must be addressed from the perspective of both the environment and the economic wellbeing of an area. In contemporary folklore regarding our survival, it is apparent that human beings must learn to live in harmony with the earth, and our own lives and the life of the planet can be considerably improved if we learn to treat nature and the planet with respect.
No State body can make its own rules, as this is the function of the legislators. I welcome this debate as a means of keeping this important subject to the forefront of public interest. The present planning system must be scrutinised for any inadequacies which exist, and any loopholes found should be blocked by legislation. Due cognisance must be given to the importance of environmental impact studies, with funding and use of independent, properly qualified experts, who would enhance the results, thus making their findings more acceptable to a wider spectrum of public opinion.
The Office of Public Works must be praised for the initiative it has taken in the area of interpretative centres and national parks. Places such as Coole Park in County Galway are part and parcel of our tourist economy. The location of Mullaghmore in the Burren is unique. It is an area of north County Clare and south County Galway which is rich in heritage, with alpine and mediterranean plants growing side by side. It is also an area rich in flora and fauna, with butterflies, moths, and pinemartins in abundance. Alongside this are the historic caves, adjacent to the historic mountain — as we now know it to be — of Mullaghmore.
The location is considered by many to be unsuitable for the interpretative centre in question. Nobody is against the idea of such a centre for the Burren area, but it is this location which has been questioned. Some argue that the existing centre at Kilfenora could be further developed, while others propose smaller units in local towns such as Gort, Kinvara and Corofin.
The Burren is a unique area and the danger of pollution from the siting of large septic tanks in marshy land to cater for the influx of huge volumes of people is a matter of concern, as is the idea of big groups of people trampling on rare flowers. Small groups, allowing the solitude of the region to prevail, are perhaps more acceptable. On the other side of the argument, the location of the interpretative centre at Mullaghmore in a disused quarry, at a distance of a mile from the mountain itself, together with the type of materials used in its construction, may mean that it will not cause significant visual impact.
The view of the majority of public representatives and of Clare County Council who have backed the project must be respected. There is strong local support in the region for this project, as Senators from County Clare, and the Minister have indicated. In addition, Clare Archaeological and Historical Society hold the view that the plans put forward by the Office of Public Works for the Burren National Park, including the visitor facilities, will meet all the requirements of international standards and will play a key role in conserving the heritage of this fascinating region.
The Office of Public Works manages 31 centres in Ireland which cater for 1.25 million visitors annually. The visitor centre at Glendalough has received major awards for design and conservation. The Office of Public Works has a proud record, therefore, and in the case of Mullaghmore it will doubtless adhere to its customary standards. In addition, the employment which the centre at Mullaghmore will generate is badly needed in the area and it must also be acknowledged that in our damp climate covered facilities for our visitors is desirable. It is also desirable that there be a focal point for any area. Furthermore, the Ailwee caves are hugely successful as a tourist attraction and they blend in well with the local terrain.
There are arguments for and against on this issue, but it was regrettable that the Mullaghmore project was rushed without adequate consultation. The views of people must be listened to and respected and at the end of the day a consensus could be arrived at. We have all learned much from the haste with which the centre at Mullaghmore proceeded. For all future such developments, the planning process must be completed and consultation must be the norm at all levels.
Public health legislation in 1978 places responsibility on the statutory authorities for the removal of refuse from premises. Since then, various additional legislation has been enacted covering water and waste disposal, site, litter, water pollution and so on. An EU Directive issued in 1975 calls on member states to establish a system of waste disposal, the objective of which must be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste.
The issue of conservation of water supplies, while it may not appear topical after the recent deluge, is something which must be addressed in the long term, even with a temperate climate such as ours. With our present policy of economic growth, more industry leads to greater demands on available sources of water. There is then a tendency to over use these sources without thought for the future or the development of alternative supplies. We should be planning for the future now, and not on an ad hoc basis as events unfold. We should have a coherent policy for the benefit of our descendants which will encompass economic development while coexisting with nature.
We have no major problems with water supplies in Ireland at present. Indeed, if everything else was as plentiful as water in the country, many of our problems could be easily remedied. However, water pollution is regrettably well known and is the norm in many areas, especially rural areas. How often have we seen notices displayed requesting us to boil water before using for human consumption? Relative to the water in our rivers and lakes, addressed by the motion before the House, the ownership of water becomes a factor, and if interference takes place upstream it can lead to major problems downstream; therefore, control and ownership are very important. Under water pollution legislation local government authorities are obliged to keep registers of abstraction of water in their functional areas. Individual houses are exempt from licensing and their use of water, or the abstraction for individual houses, causes little or no impact on water tables.
The activities of industries and their use of water may be monitored as an extraction of huge volumes of water. Often needs could run down supplies, leading to pollution problems downstream, with a major effect on fish life ensuing if there is not enough water coming through. Lower levels of water, especially in summer time, can raise many problems, especially for the fishing industry. It can have a major effect on anglers above all others. The reality of conservation cannot be viewed in its environmental aspect alone. It must be seen from the economic, social and cultural perspectives as well. The message of conservation does not mean letting nature take over but means the wise use of money and manpower working in unison with nature.
I will be brief because I cannot speak with any particular authority on this subject. I welcome the motion because it touches on a topic of great and growing importance and one which will not go away. I very much welcome in principle the establishment of national parks and interpretative centres, which have developed rapidly in recent years. They greatly improve the ability to tell tourists and foreigners about what type of country we are. We can also learn a great deal from them. I certainly have learned a great deal about Ireland from visiting various national parks and interpretative centres and I have been very grateful for the expertise and commitment which has gone into developing them.
I do not know anything in particular about Mullaghmore. I am one of those Senators who have not visited this site but, unlike those mentioned by Senator Daly, I am not going to pronounce on what ought to be done there. For me it is a site unseen in every sense of the term, but I am a very strong supporter of respect for local opinion where it is clear it has not been manipulated. One of the most valuable developments of the environmental movement has been the growth of strong local opinion across the country on a whole range of issues arising from these proposals.
I recall listening to "The Gay Byrne Show" on radio a few years ago. The whole programme was devoted to Luggala. It took the form of a think-in in the vicinity of Luggala. Two things struck me very forcibly. The Office of Public Works officials came across as extremely dedicated and crusading in their commitment to the development of interpretative centres. However, at times they also came across as having the mentality of colonial governors, as if they knew it all and the backward natives did not. Their attitude was could the natives not stop being obstreperous, realise what was good for them and accept the superior wisdom of central Government authority.
I was not competent to judge where wisdom lay but I was very taken aback to sense the mindset and attitude coming through. I hope officials who may have grown up in that mindset will have learned from the experience of the last few years that this simply has no future in dealing with strong local feeling and that the commitment they undoubtedly have will be in a sense placed more modestly at the service of local aspiration rather than seeking to impose what is deemed to be superior wisdom on the natives. I hope this is one area about which we have learned a great deal in the last few years.
When one looks at the Minister's speech, one is very struck by the rhetoric of "the planet earth", "the good ship Earth", "communicating with nature" and all these wonderful things of which I and all of us are strongly in favour. I suspect the rhetoric is running a little ahead of the reality but in the right direction. I welcome the rhetoric, even if it is a little more elevated than what we see out of doors when we move out of the building. It is eloquent, indicative of the right direction in which to move and should be supported.
The reference to the necessity to address these issues by international action, including educational actions to increase people's awareness of natural heritage, is obviously welcome but one does not have to wait for international action. National action can improve people's awareness through the education system. We should ask ourselves how we can incorporate more systematically in the education system awareness of the environmental dimension of virtually everything we do.
There is a reference in the Green Paper on education to the importance of environmental education. I hope that when the White Paper is published this strand of the Green Paper — I have been critical of a number of the aspects of the Green Paper but I unreservedly welcome this aspect — will be developed systematically and that we will rear a growing generation which will be much more conscious from the beginning of the importance of environment proofing virtually any developments in economic and other areas.
I welcome the Minister. We are sorry that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, could not be here. I hope he is enjoying himself in Argentina.
Even though I live near Mullaghmore, I do not know it as well as I should. I will leave Senator O'Sullivan to comment on this matter if she has time. She has walked the length and breadth of the Burren and can talk about it with authority. I will deal with the other aspects of the motion. I thank Senators Dardis and Honan for bringing this motion before us.
Humanity together inhabits one world. We have received it from previous generations. We do not own the environment but hold it in trust for future generations. For generations this truth was known and respected by communities in Ireland and throughout the world. It is part of the religion of people in some parts of the world to respect the environment. This is particularly true of the native Indians of America and the natives of Australia.
Over the course of the years, particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution, we became arrogant in our belief that the world was there for us to exploit, ravage and to get as much from as we could without any consideration for the damage we were doing to our natural environment. In enriching ourselves we were robbing our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Throughout the world there has been a recognition that as we take from this world we also need to give back.
I support Senator Dardis when he talks about the care we should take when we take vast quantities of water from rivers, even rivers as strong flowing as the Liffey. In providing water for non-essential purposes such as car washes, there is the danger that we could rob a whole ecosystem of its ecological balance.
Our relationship to the environment and the world we inhabit must be based on the total interdependence of everyone in that world. When we create rubbish we must realise that somebody somewhere has to put up with it. If we do not recycle it, we put it into our bins and expect it to be taken away and dumped somewhere else. The NIMBY syndrome — not in my back yard — is alive and well in Ireland. Nobody wants a dump in their own back yard. Everybody is prepared to throw away cigarette papers and milk cartons but we have yet to find people who say they would love to have a dump in their parish. I do not see any advertisements in the papers for any community seeking a dump in its area. This problem is faced not just in Kill but by every local authority in Ireland. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the rubbish they create themselves.
It is very pleasing to receive the Environmental Bulletin and see the grants which are available to various companies in the private sector for recycling. For example, Kerbside Dublin, Rehab, and even Statoil garages, offer a collection service for recyclable items. Various companies throughout the length and breadth of Ireland are prepared to make the effort to involve themselves in recycling so that it becomes profitable as well as providing good environmental management rather than just a pious aspiration. In a previous debate in this House I spoke of the need to consider turning biological waste into bio-gas before it reaches our lakes and rivers, thus turning a potentially lethal weapon into something of use on farmland.
The Minister referred to the National Heritage Council Bill, which was initiated in the Seanad by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins. That Bill will be of enormous importance when it is fully implemented because vast areas will be designated as heritage areas to be preserved for future generations.
It will be coming back to us soon.
That is why I have said that we must welcome it when it does come back and not delay it with lots of amendments tabled by Senator Dardis. All efforts should be made to safeguard these areas of unique scientific, historical and scenic significance. I welcome that Bill as a great effort towards achieving this.
To sum up, our natural environment is a unique resource held in trust by this generation on behalf of the nation. In order to manage our environment sensibly and responsibly on behalf of the community it is essential that we expand considerably our monitoring of the environment. The rapid growth of urban and rural settlements, the increase of industrialisation and the application of industrial methods in agriculture combine to threaten the existing balance of the environment. This basic natural resource is essential and non-renewable. We should keep in mind the fact that once we destroy this earth it will be impossible to reconstruct; there is no other earth for us to inhabit.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Carey, to the House. I hope that rather than enjoying himself in South America, the Minister, Deputy M. Higgins is working hard on our behalf down there.
Mar is gnách.
Mar is gnách. This motion gives us an opportunity to develop some necessary points, such as where we are going in relation to interpretative centres and the preservation of our environment. However, I cannot agree with the motion and in particular the first two parts. There are, possibly, elements within the whole motion that we can accept, but I do not think we can accept the first part because of the major debate has taken place on the development of the Burren and the Mullaghmore interpretative centre. It seems strange that most of the controversy against the interpretative centre for Mullaghmore and the Burren is urban based. Generally speaking, urban people are against it, while local people and rural people are in favour.
There has been controversy all over the world regarding interpretative centres. In certain places where they are close to an area of natural beauty these centres have worked. In other areas it has been found that where they are away from the area of natural beauty or the particular item or monument that is being interpreted, they have not worked. Since international thinking on interpretative centres has not yet been focused, we cannot say that one is right in a certain place while another is wrong in another place.
The interpretative centres in Mayo and in Glenbeigh in County Donegal are a credit to everybody concerned. One can have an interpretative centre in an area of such natural beauty as Glenbeigh Park, into which one can drive; and rather than taking away from the environment, it enhances the area. I have not heard anyone saying either that that centre has taken away from the natural beauty of the area or that the natural beauty has been downgraded due to the numbers of visitors that continue to go there.
It seems that if you are a musician, actor or film star of international stature you know everything about environmental protection. But those in the entertainment business who are against interpretative centres, in the Boyne Valley or elsewhere, are the very people who will beat the doors down to hold huge concerts in County Meath, bringing thousands upon thousands of people to an area in which they do not want an interpretative centre built. In my opinion, there is an imbalance in their thought process.
Kilkenny is in a national park but nobody who is giving out about the interpretative centres around the country has given any thought to the environmental damage to Kilkenny city because of the influx of visitors. We love to see them visiting the Castle, the Cathedral, Rothe House and various other places of international interest. The interpretative centre for Kilkenny is in the city centre and it attracts a huge number of tourists. We are trying our best to develop road and parking systems to allow the continued development of these facilities for tourists and local people, while not downgrading their quality of life. Unless local people benefit as well, there is no point in having interpretative centres for tourists.
I know the Burren area extremely well, having visited it on holidays since I was a child. There is a need for an interpretative centre there. Having looked at it, I do not see anything particularly wrong with the suggested site for the interpretative centre. I have examined it as somebody who loves the area, what grows there and its natural beauty. Unless there is an interpretative centre in that area, there cannot be management of visitors to it. There is no point in establishing an interpretative centre on the present site or any place else unless there is management of the visitors who are now tramping all over that magnificent scene with its historic flora and fauna which cannot be found in many other places in the world.
There is no doubt that we must safeguard areas of unique scientific, historical and scenic significance as is stated in the motion. Looking at the work carried out by the Office of Public Works on many sites and in many different environments, I cannot point to one and claim it is a badly completed job. The standard of workmanship and thought that has been put into such works in the past has been tremendous.
The motion seeks "to take steps to limit landfill disposal of refuse". There is a huge problem with refuse disposal in this country. There must be greater emphasis on recycling. Landfill disposal will not be an easy option in the future. Kilkenny was the first area that was obliged to abide by the new EU rules on landfill sites. The cost of installing a dump at present is enormous. A base must be installed. Pipes must be installed to remove gas and one must be certain that water and leachate can be removed. The water around the area must be preserved and so forth. It is an enormous problem that must be addressed. The cost of addressing it is also enormous. Site management of landfills is of extreme importance. Unless site management is good, there will be problems in any landfill area. However, if the site is managed properly according to the rules and regulations that must be followed, one need not be afraid. The landfill site in Kilkenny is within 150 yards of the Nore river and there has been no problem with it.
Yet.
We have ensured that there will not be a problem.
The Senator's time is up.
The thinking behind the motion is good, but I cannot support it.
I agree with every part of the motion and in particular with its call "to take steps to limit landfill disposal of refuse". I welcome the Minister. I am sure he will bring my comments to the attention of the Minister for the Environment.
I have read a great deal of material on this issue. The Geological Survey of Ireland tells us that landfill will only be permitted subject to site investigation, adequate operational safeguards and sufficient containment to satisfy the proposed EU Directive. Landfill sites underlaid by permeable strata will eventually cause ground water pollution unless there is an upward hydraulic grid or unless multiple composite liners are used with sophisticated leachate monitoring and collection systems.
I could continue to discuss the survey report, but I wish to put on record the absolutely appalling situation at a landfill site being operated in north Cork. It is not subject to regulations of any description, even EU regulations. I am very angry about this. It was established in 1990. At that time we were told that an environmental impact survey was not necessary because the amount being disposed of would be less than the 25,000 tonnes per annum which is required in the EU Directive. We were also told that the site would take only domestic refuse collected by the local authority and refuse from one or two contractors who would be closely monitored. By 1992, 24,000 tonnes of refuse per annum were being deposited in the site without any control whatsoever. None of the measures in the EU Directive was put in place because less than 25,000 tonnes per annum were being deposited there.
I consulted the Geological Survey of Ireland again. It tells us that in that locality there is a very important regional aquifer. Other documentation from authorities on this issue prove beyond doubt that even landfill sites provided with liners leach into the aquifers. Within three years the same local authority, the northern division of Cork County Council, was taking refuse not from one or two contractors who are being monitored but from five contractors, one of whom is from outside the county. Two others are from areas far removed from north Cork. What happened?
My concluding point will demonstrate why I am opposed to the landfill system. A subcontractor of one of the contractors arrived at the site in Ballyguyroe and he — and not the council people who were supposed to be monitoring the site — found two plastic disposable ten millimetre pipettes, a photocopy of the title page of an agricultural research journal of November 1994, disposable syringes with plastic needles and a sample containing coagulated blood. That came from the Agricultural Institute at Moorepark in Fermoy. The blood was sent to the forensic laboratory of the Department of Justice which determined that it was bovine blood. That refuse was found in a landfill site in Ballyguyroe over a major regional aquifer. This continues without let or hindrance and I could not let this occasion pass without putting the appalling situation there on the record.
It is fine to talk about EU directives. Are they in place? Are they being put in place? Is the document Selection and Management of Landfill Sites of the Geological Survey on ground water aspects of the issue being implemented? I would say not. If it was being implemented we would not have the appalling situation in Ballyguyroe. I support the motion.
Many Members of the House would agree with many aspects of this motion. However, to lump together five different areas which have little in common is playing politics with important and sensitive issues. In my discussion of the five areas I will start with the last two mentioned in the motion.
Everybody would agree with sections (d) and (e), particularly section (d) which states "to take steps to limit landfill disposal of refuse". However, it is highly irresponsible for any party to propose that we should take steps to limit landfill disposal of refuse in such as bland fashion as is proposed in this motion without suggesting some alternatives.
The Senator should read the operational programme which was published by the Government of which he was a part.
I do not wish to have a row with Senator Dardis but the only answer to landfill disposal of refuse is the technological developments which are now to be found in other parts of the world and which, inevitably, will have to come to this country. The problem with such developments is that they are extremely expensive. I suggest to Senator Dardis and his party that it would be a very responsible step if they were to undertake some examination of the alternatives.
For example, 30 power stations have been developed in major cities throughout the United States, using the waste-to-energy technology which was developed in Germany. This has taken care of the refuse problem in those cities. A very interesting joint venture takes place between the private and public sectors and local government to develop those waste-to-energy power stations which dispose of all of the waste and refuse in the cities concerned. We should examine seriously the possibility of locating such a facility in Dublin.
If we are serious about tackling this problem, instead of simply taking steps to limit the landfill disposal of refuse, we must also provide alternatives. The Seanad should look at the cost and other implications and talk to some of the companies concerned, such as Ogdon which is the main operator of those power stations in the United States. Of course, it involves very significant capital and running costs, but that is the price which has to be paid if we want to deal with refuse in the most modern and environmentally friendly way.
Section (e), which states "to reduce water abstraction from rivers and lakes where there is potential for environmental damage", is without question a very desirable proposal which is not as difficult to deal with as many people might think. There has never been any such problem in the west of Ireland and I take it that there will not be such a problem in the east either.
However, with regard to the first three sections, I have very strong feelings about the objections which have been raised to the Office of Public Works's proposals for interpretative centres. I am often critical of the Office of Public Works but its work in regard to interpretative centres has been second to none. I have to smile at the objections to developments at places such as Mullaghmore and Luggala as I live a mile from Coole Park and if the objections which I have heard for the last number of years stood up, Coole Park would be a disaster area today. The Office of Public Works put an interpretative centre in Coole Park, which was the home of Lady Gregory, and Senator Daly was instrumental in its development.
If we had retained the house we would not need an interpretative centre.
We should have retained the house but, unfortunately, it was demolished 40 or 50 years ago. I wonder where all those people who are now objecting to Mullaghmore and Luggala were in the last few years when Coole Park was being developed. I invite anybody to come to Coole Park today and point out to me any disaster which has resulted.
It is totally different.
It is not totally different.
Of course it is, they are wildernesses.
It is an exactly similar forest situation to that of Luggala. Thousands of people now walk through Coole Park as a result of the interpretative centre and we want more people to go there. It defies logic to say that an interpretative centre in Coole Park is acceptable whereas one in the centre of a forest in Wicklow is not acceptable.
I note in the Minister's speech that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht will make a recommendation to Government about Mullaghmore. If I know the Minister, I am sure that he will recommend that work on the centre should be discontinued. When the next Fianna Fáil Government is in power, whenever that may be, the centre in Mullaghmore will be built.
I live a couple of miles from the Burren, where I spend most of my free time, and to me it is the most precious landscape in the world. I spent many hours in Mullaghmore before the interpretative centre was discussed, during the time it was built and since then, and I am utterly convinced that the interpretative centre will not have the negative effect on the Burren which so many people feel that it will.
I hope that the Government goes ahead with Mullaghmore and that people such as the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, in particular, ensure it is built because, like Coole Park, when it is finished many of today's concerns will no longer exist. However, even if it does not go ahead in the short term, it will go ahead in the long term because it is the proper course of action for the Burren.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I welcome the new development in the planning systems as, heretofore, bodies such as the Office of Public Works did not have to apply for planning permission. In my own county, the question of road development into a site caused a great deal of controversy because the Office of Public Works expected the county council to build the road and the county council expected the Office of Public Works to do it. Thankfully, money was made available from the INTERREG fund as otherwise there would have been a major problem. The local authority should have a say in such cases. If a private individual applied for development, the issue of the road would arise and they might have to pay a hefty charge in order to cater for the extra traffic which the development would generate. I welcome that recent change in the planning regulations.
A visitors' centre opened near where I live last autumn which has been a huge success. That centre would probably not exist but for the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, who visited our village one day when going to Mayo and gave the go-ahead for two visitors' centres, one in Keenagh, County Longford and the other in Mayo. There was no local controversy but people were concerned that there should be an access road to the centre. There was complete co-operation with local people through the local development committee and the Office of Public Works. One hopes when the Minister comes back from Argentina he will open the centre in the not too distant future. We look forward to having this as a major tourist attraction in the midlands. As Senators are aware my area does not have many such attractions and a development like this enhances our tourism potential.
I do not want to get involved in a discussion about Clare because so much has been and remains to be said and written about it, but that area has always received a great boost from tourism. Perhaps visitors there are taken for granted and may not be fully appreciated. Natural areas are there to be enjoyed and perhaps some do not want to share them with the public. The Office of Public Works has done fantastic work in creating interpretative centres and has always maintained the character of areas. Connemara Park and Glenveagh Park in Donegal are examples of the perfection it has achieved over the years.
I listened with great care to Senator Belton's contribution and I support what he said. The work which has taken place in Ardagh and other areas in County Longford has been magnificent. Our area is the undiscovered part of Ireland. Mystery tours are currently being held there and are extremely popular.
The greatest need in our area is for information centres. At the "Seven Wonders of Fore", visited by up to 2,000 people a week, people are clamouring for information about this unique area. I would have no hesitation in supporting this great gift of communication, provided it was done in consultation with local people, because it will provide many jobs.
As we all know, the greatest opportunity the country has had for the last 25 years is at hand. Tourism is one of the three great industries supported by all Governments since the time of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, in 1987. The current Government also believes there is great potential for growth in tourism. I speak about this industry with enormous experience.
The latest market research shows the number one tourist attraction for Americans is castles. My area contains an abundance of castles. There is Knockdrin Castle and the famed Tullynally Castle where the famous author, Mr. Thomas Pakenham, resides.
What about Castlepollard?
There is also a castle in Delvin. We have more than our fair share of tourist attractions; we only lack the expertise or the people to market them. The Leas-Chathaoirleach comes from the beautiful area of Roscommon. The midlands also includes Cavan — which features Dún na Rí — and my county, Westmeath. There must be a development drive by everyone concerned.
This is my first opportunity to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, to the House. He is a man of experience and is a great rural representative, as all of us from the country like to think of ourselves. There is no doubt that information centres are vital to market, promote and give the public the information required. I could speak on this for much longer but I gladly give way to my colleagues who wish to contribute.
May I share my time with Senator Manning?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I will concentrate entirely on Mullaghmore because the points made on the other side should be answered. Senator Lanigan suggested the objections to the Mullaghmore site were urban based and that is wrong. The environmental impact study on Mullaghmore showed there were locally organised groups on both sides of the argument. Messages from both sides were signed by people living in the area. To say this was imposed from outside is untrue, although it has been said time and again. There were large numbers of people on both sides of the argument from County Clare and County Galway.
The objections to Mullaghmore are to the site, not to the concept of interpretative centres. People welcome the concept but not on the particular site. It is different from Coole Park, mentioned by Senator Fahey, which is a developed area, not a wilderness area like Mullaghmore. There are not great numbers walking all over Mullaghmore, as was suggested by Senator Lanigan; it is beautiful because of its stillness and isolation. That is why people are objecting. There is no objection to an interpretative centre where jobs can be provided in a place like Kilfenora, Corofin or Ballyvaughan. Those areas have structures and there are no difficulties with the sensitive ground water or turlough system.
Coole Park is a wilderness.
There are no rare flowers there like bee orchids.
That was all dealt with.
There are no fragile habitats there. That is the reason for the objections to the Mullaghmore site. I objected to it vehemently from the start and I know the area well.
What about the monstrosity built in John's Castle? It was desecrated.
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for sharing her time. This has been an extremely useful debate. The contributions have been well-informed and helpful. As the Minister announced and as everyone knows, this matter will go to Government for decision within the next few days. Unlike Senator Fahey I do not believe the Minister is going to Cabinet with a closed mind or that the decision has been taken already.
His mind is made up.
Senator Daly is the only one of us present who has had the privilege of serving in Cabinet and he would tell us there are 15 people with differing points of view. Nothing which goes to Cabinet is pre-ordained. Nonetheless what has happened here has been useful because it will feed into the Cabinet discussion.
I agree with 99 per cent of Senator Dardis's motion. The one portion with which I have difficulty — I do not disagree with it — is the part on Mullaghmore. My views on Mullaghmore are very close to those of Senators O'Sullivan and Sherlock, your own, Sir, and those of some people on the far side who have not spoken this evening. My views may be quite different in some ways to those of my friend, the Minister of State here. The simple fact of the matter is that we are being asked to take a major decision on Mullaghmore tonight. The Programme for Government lays down, as one of its priorities, that this will be examined in a short space of time. The Government will make its recommendation in light of all that has been said and done and any decision will take into account the Bord Pleanála decisions, the court cases and so on and it will be in the public interest.
It is an extraordinary issue. Mullaghmore hit us all between the eyes as an issue which came from nowhere, took off and suddenly developed a momentum which has raised passions and feelings in a way that none of us could have envisaged. It has almost become a civil war in some families in different parts of the country, both rural and urban. I do not think there is any right or correct position on it. Senator Daly made a valid point. The Minister's own feelings and well expressed views on Mullaghmore have extraordinary validity, as have the views of Senator O'Sullivan. The job of Government is, in the public interest, to try to reconcile the two points of view without tearing the Irish people apart. We all love the country and do not want to do any damage of which our children can accuse us of afterwards. On the other hand, we want the best economic livelihood and so on. The views are very strongly held.
I will be urging my colleagues in Government not to vote but to abstain on this motion tonight, which is an unusual thing for a Government party to do. I will urge them to abstain because the arguments have been made here tonight and it is up to the Government to listen to what has been said. A vote from here telling the Government that it can do this or should not do that is not going to change its view. The arguments have been very well expressed here this evening.
I would prefer this debate to take place two or three weeks down the line when we have a Government decision on which we can argue and vote and where the vote would make some difference. It is unusual but I will urge my colleagues in the Government parties — but they are free to do as they wish — to suspend judgment on this issue and ensure that the arguments made here tonight will be laid before the people making the Government decision. That decision will be made in light of all the information, the renegotiated Programme for Government, the new partnership in Government and so on.
We have all learnt a great deal from this debate. None of us would go about doing what was done in the same way ever again, and thank God for that. We have all learnt a great deal but now is the time, rather than hectoring and adopting an entrenched position, to at least listen to what everybody was saying. Let us hope that the Government will make the right decision in all our interests.
The Leader's last remarks have drawn me into an area into which I had not intended to intrude, but he has prompted me to do so. It concerns democracy and what democracy is all about. In my view, it is quite appropriate for a House of the Oireachtas to demand of the Government that it do certain things, not the other way around. That is a fairly central issue in that whole argument.
I thank all the Senators who contributed to what has been a very good debate. There were some Adjournment issues during the debate but, apart from that, it has been a good debate. I agree with practically everything the Minister said in his address and I thank him for the comprehensive nature of his reply to the debate. I agree so much with what he said that I would be very surprised if the Government parties could not support the motion before the House this evening.
I was glad to hear that there will be a Cabinet decision on this matter in the near future. I take note of what was said about the policy agreement when the Government was formed. I had some difficulties however when the Minister spoke of Minister Higgins deliberating on it calmly as it is not something that I readily associate with the Minister. I am sure he will give it deliberation — whether it be calm or not I am not so sure, but that is by the way.
I do not have criticisms about the Office of Public Works's work and I would not like it to be suggested that I do. However, like all organisations, they can make mistakes. Senator O'Sullivan's point is central to this argument. The issue is not what they or these centres do, but where they do it.
Comparing Coole Park with Mullaghmore, which stands over porous limestone, is a total fallacy. We are in favour of national parks. Nobody has suggested during the course of this debate that anybody is not in favour of national parks, but we have to draw lines in terms of where some of these centres are built. One thing Mullaghmore has achieved is that is has made us concentrate our minds on the nature of the argument before us. We have had much rhetoric and the aspiration is fine — as I said, I agree with what the Minister said — but it comes back to how we do it.
The matter of elitism has to be nailed. There is an idea that there is some privileged elite trying to prevent every development in the country. We would not have a Christian Church were it not for an elite of 12 plus one. An elite can actually do something and tell us what we need to be told. There is a conflict between what local communities need and want in terms of jobs, development and tourism potential and what is demanded of us from a national perspective and even more so from an international perspective.
We have to get it into our heads that tourists are attracted to this country by the quality of the environment. For somebody to say that they cannot see the connection between the different elements of the motion surprises me because it is about the quality of the environment in this country, whether it be the built environment, the natural environment, the aquatic environment or whatever.
I want to make a point in respect of building interpretative centres all over the country. I have been to Fore and I recognise its quality. However, Fore has an additional quality which is characteristic of places such as Coole. It has an immense resource which we do not appreciate in our own community — the sound of silence. It is an inestimable quality for somebody who lives in the Ruhr valley, an American city or a built community to be able to go and stand in the country, hear the birds and listen to the water. That is the greatest resource we have.
And no people.
I was about to mention our people.
But that is the point.
That is what attracts people to this country. We must be careful that the pressure on that resource does not get to a point where the resource itself is destroyed.
There is a good planning committee in the county.
The precautionary principle is central to the argument. The principle is that one must adopt the position that there is a potential for damage and unless it can be proven conclusively that no damage will result, the development must not take place.
I thank the Senators who took part in the debate. I commend the motion to the House. Senator Kelly said that we hold this resource in trust. We are just passing through; we are the custodians. There is a solemn responsibility on us to maintain the resource in the condition we found it and pass it on to the next generation. People who lived in far more frugal times and with far more difficulties seemed to have much greater regard for the countryside, the water and the quality of the environment around them.
The question is: "That the motion be agreed to." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Dardis, Honan and Henry rose.
As fewer than five Senators have risen in their places I declare that the question is defeated.
Question declared lost.
The names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Official Report and the Journal of Proceedings of the Seanad.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m.