Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the meeting. I compliment the OPW on the things to be complimented on and will make further comment on the things not to be complimented on, whatever they might be.

In the first instance, the work of OPW in the management of public buildings, estates and arterial drainage all over the country is exemplary, with one or two exceptions. This work has been going on for some years. It has been very effective. The sad part about it is that objections to the proposals now seem to carry more weight than the proposals. We should remember that if a solution is proposed that is required to protect the environment, people's homes and the landscape in general, then it has to be taken seriously. A means needs to be found to ensure the work in progress is not impeded by somebody who has another agenda, whatever that agenda may be.

I compliment the Minister of State and the OPW on the drainage works in Kildare which have been very successful and have dealt with the problem of flooding which happened every year without fail, not just once in 50 years or 100 years. That has been resolved satisfactorily, I am glad to say, and there are a few further bits to go.

I will give the Chair, an example, very quickly, of a flood about five to seven years ago which flooded a residential area around Sallins. A whole estate was flooded up to the top of the window sills. Some of us could not understand it. I used to make my living at that kind of work many years ago until I discovered that attenuation tanks were deemed to be the solution to deal with the drainage of the area. What a load of nonsense. Anybody who came up with that conclusion could not have been feeling well at the time but the fact of the matter was that while everybody wrung their hands and talked about reports and calling in experts from abroad to tell us what to do next, two or three local people decided to cut a channel into the nearby canal. The result was the water which had been three-quarter ways up the windows and to the ceiling, with colossal damage done to the houses, was down within an hour and a half. It was simple thinking and it was done. It never flooded again and there was equally heavy rainfall since. It is a question of applying natural methods to solve the problem and not highfalutin notions about what should solve the problem but did not.

There have been a number of other occasions around the country where houses have been at risk with regard to the turloughs and so on. I can assure the Minister of State that I am familiar with them. We wring our hands and we ask what we can do as it is five, six, or seven houses. We say we will move them out, it will cost nothing, they have been flooded before in any event and we can expect more flooding. That is not the way that should be dealt with. It should be dealt with straightaway and if a means can be found to relieve that flooding, we should do it because we know it happens occasionally.

One lake disappeared in one night and the neighbours fought over the land afterwards. Following that, the lake reappeared, so they did not have much to disagree with after that.

I would say that a practical attitude will save a great deal in what some people see as something that should be preserved. The preserving of flooding is not in anybody's interest. I know that we are in the throes of rewetting the land of this country how much rewetting do we need before we are happy with the level of water, recognising that water finds its own level everywhere in the long run? I would suggest that we are fairly well rewetted at the present time. Those who have to make their living in the rewetted areas may ask, "What about me?" We should bear that in mind, and we need to do that soon.

We should remember that they say that one man's meat is another man's poison. We have to take account of the natural inhabitants in an area and try to ascertain the greatest extent to which we can facilitate them. We should remember they have rights too. That does not mean that we do not go about all of the other things we have to do on climate change. These have to be done, and we have to do them to the best of our ability, but we should be wary about coming to conclusions that end up saying that we must do more. We should be very wary about that for the simple reason of asking how much more rewetting we want.

How poor do we need to make ourselves before we have enough done? In recent days, the EPA has claimed that the sacrifices made so far are not sufficient and have had no worthwhile impact in alleviating climate change. It should come forward and tell us more about it. If the sacrifices we are making are so useless and are of no benefit in trying to meet the challenges of climate change, we should find another way but let us not have the sword of Damocles over our heads forever because people live and subsist in the countryside.

The Chairman will be glad to hear I am finishing on this last point. The Minister of State knows full well what it is. It relates to a stately home in my constituency. It has significance not only for the area around Celbridge but for the whole country. We were at a meeting just the other night on its importance and the importance of the valuable objets d'artretained in Castletown House for the whole nation and for the locality. We are conscious of the importance and historical value of the estate and we are equally conscious of the need to maintain, restore and defend it in every way possible. What annoys me is the extent to which the OPW painted local residents as the villains of the piece when they came across engineers or employees of the OPW with an angle grinder who were going to reopen the main gates to the extent needed to accommodate the traffic associated with the way the estate had been operating for some years. It was without provocation. The local people had no option but to protest. They still protest and, to this day, they are being unfairly blamed even though several months have passed and we are still on the same route. I have brought this matter up in the House 11 times with various Ministers, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and all have lauded the idea of retaining the estate as an important national heritage location that must be maintained. There is more to the matter that I do not want to delay the meeting with but I appeal to the Minister of the State to deal with the situation.

A new owner bought the adjoining property through which the local authority, the public and the OPW had access for the past 15 years or so. I ask that this access be restored under an interim agreement or some other agreement because it is important that we do not revert to the Lime Avenue entrance, which was valid 200 years ago when Castletown House was built. It was the obvious place and where all the traffic went at that time. Suggesting that traffic go back and forth on that avenue and emerge onto Main Street in Celbridge in the present day is just rubbish. It just does not add up. It would be strongly objected to. It would destroy the town and embitter the people against what is being done to them. They have a right to live in the town and enjoy Castletown House, just as much as people from all over the country do. As was said to us at a recent meeting, people from all over the country have a right to enjoy the house. Of course they have. I do not object to that at all but, in addition, there are taxpayers in Celbridge, just mere taxpayers, who also have a right and entitlement to enjoy their local estate and to welcome visitors to the area.

I appeal to the Minister of State to use his initiative, powers and good offices to turn the tables on the debate so far in such a way as to ensure the estate is protected and preserved, that access to the estate as previously provided is continued through a temporary provision, and that people can come and go from the M4-N4 as they have done for the past 15 years. Turning history on its head and attempting to suggest we can cater for the traffic of today with the same route envisaged 200 years ago will not work. If there were two independent private landowners in this dispute, the courts would already have got involved. They would have had to. It is essential the State asserts itself to protect its interests and the interests of the local people, the tourism industry and national and international visitors in such an important site. I ask that this be done without more ado. Time is running out. I do not intend to spend any more time talking about this issue. I have to do something else.