Vol. 551 No. 2
34 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason the Attorney General directed his Department to settle a case in favour of riparian rights (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7770/02]
The High Court action in question was initiated in 1999 by the owners of the Waddington estate, whose lands adjoin the Boyne Estuary in Drogheda. The estate claimed ownership of foreshore abutting its lands which had been developed by the Drogheda Port Company at Tom Roe's Point in the Boyne Estuary under leases granted under the Foreshore Acts, as well as infringement of riparian rights.
Following advice from the Attorney General and after full consideration of the implications for the State's interest in the foreshore and Drogheda Port Company, my Department pursued and secured settlement of the action. The settlement, while recognising the property rights of the Waddington estate, safeguarded the current facility at Tom Roe's Point and allowed the Drogheda Port Company to proceed with its plans to develop an area west of the facility, subject to the appropriate consent under the Foreshore Acts, which has since been given by me. Moreover, the settlement removes any doubts that the foreshore in question is the property of the State.
The area restricted by the settlement is a small part of the Boyne Estuary downstream of the Tom Roe's Point development. As I explained in my reply to Deputy Bell's Parliamentary Question No. 104 on 19 February 2002, the Boyne Estuary is a special protection area under EU legislation and any future development there must satisfy very stringent restrictions. Dúchas, the heritage service, which is the statutory authority with responsibility in this area, has informed my Department that it would have serious reservations about any further land reclamation downstream of the Tom Roe's Point development. The port company is aware that, apart from the settlement in the Waddington case, any further developments in the Boyne Estuary will be affected by these considerations.
The Minister will appreciate that as a former chairman of the port authority, I feel very strongly about this matter. The Minister is talking about law enacted in the time of Queen Victoria and riparian rights dating back to the mid-18th century. On what basis did the Attorney General telephone the High Court and instruct the legal representatives of the Department to settle the case in favour of riparian rights of the Waddington estate which effectively means that the Drogheda Port Company cannot develop one inch of land east of Tom Roe's Point? What consultation took place between the Department and Attorney General and what agreement, if any, was reached before the Attorney General gave the instruction by telephone on the day of the High Court hearing?
It is not practice to release details of legal advice issued by the Attorney General which is privileged.
Unless he speaks about it during his election campaign.
I can state, however, that the advice to me was that the State would not have a very good case if this matter was pursued in court and that a settlement should be reached.
I strongly disagree. This was not the advice available to the Drogheda Port Company and the major company operating there, the Monaghan Company, which is the largest importer in the north-east region. The question is whether the port company can do any work on the land. I was unable to get a copy of the geographical area covered by the High Court ruling which was directed by the Attorney General from the Department against the wishes of the Drogheda Port Company. Will the Minister produce a copy?
The settlement only relates to a small part of the Boyne Estuary of 272,441 square metres which is a special protection area. I will provide the Deputy with a copy of the area concerned. The settlement safeguards the whole of the Tom Roe's Point development to date and allows it to be completed to the west as proposed by the Drogheda Port Company.
This will stop the development of many hundreds of jobs and cost a substantial sum of money both in legal fees and loss of the development east of Tom Roe's Point.
While I accept the Deputy's frustration, this was a case taken before the courts in which the law of the land was on the side of the landowners and, consequently, the advice was to settle the case.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
