Most road construction projects now attract a huge amount of opposition. They certainly attract a number of queries and create great concern in local communities. In fact, given their physical nature, they often divide local communities. As a result, there is serious tension during the planning process.
That is the situation with the scheme being undertaken on the N9 at Maddoxtown in Kilree. Tension has crept into the debate because of the role of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the quarry located in the area. Local people are anxious to clarify the objections of the Department and the issue of the quarry. They want to know the argument being made by the Department to have the route removed and a new one established. The local community is also anxious to hear the Department's case about the compensation requested. It is unusual for the Department of Transport to undertake a road construction project only to have another Department object to the preferred route and demand a compensation package.
It is particularly important that the Minister outline the Department's case. As is the case with all such projects, there is a compensation issue. If the Department is responsible for moving the preferred route and has a compensation argument, that same argument could be taken up and used by all land users. They would have a legitimate right to use that argument because the same mineral runs under much of the land outside the quarry site.
The community has raised a number of questions with the Department. It is anxious that it state its case surrounding the Dunbell quarry; if it is likely that the quarry lease will be extended beyond 2008 and beyond the lands at the southern boundary of the site; if the lease will be renewed and if the Department has entered into negotiations about it. According to a note I received from the Department, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources entered into negotiations with Kilkenny County Council and that is where the objection to the preferred route emerged. The note states the Department's exploration and mining division in January 2002 was in discussions regarding the 15 million tonnes of dolomite in the land affected. On 29 August 2002 the Department was formally objecting to the scheme. What meetings took place after that date? Has the Department made any effort with the engineers involved to deal with the problems emerging? Were there meetings between the exploration and mining division of the Department and Kilkenny County Council this year?
I am anxious that the Minister put the information surrounding these queries into the public domain. Perhaps he will use the opportunity afforded to him in this Adjournment debate to explain in detail the stance being taken by his Department.
Will the Minister of State attempt to allay the fears in that area regarding his objections to the preferred route in the first place? That information could perhaps be used by the landowners now affected on route number three to see if they have the appropriate minerals so that they can use the same argument. The issue should be dealt with in the context of compensation because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If a sizeable compensation package is there for the Department, the same figures can be used to compensate farmers and other landowners for the land they will have to dispose of for the construction of this road project. The Minister of State should use this opportunity to give a comprehensive reply to deal with the issues that have been raised by the community in that area.