Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have a general question. Has the Department any idea how many road projects or basic public infrastructure projects, including those relating to water and so on, have had to go to An Bord Pleanála and the number of those cases in which the Department has not withdrawn concerns or objections before the end of the oral hearing or, if there was no such hearing, the end of the written process? In other words, how common is it for the Department to remain unhappy despite the fact that these projects are being supported by the State? This happened with the Galway bypass, for example. We need to get some sense of the scale of the problem of the State not resolving issues before the An Bord Pleanála process is complete.

It is proposed that the R336 road between Galway and An Spidéal would go through a national heritage area. Would it be possible to amend the proposed legislation to include a more general provision about removing lands from national heritage areas? Would it be possible to set aside enough land from the NHA to build the road to An Spidéal on the line that the people of Connemara want? Part of the way out of An Spidéal is all in a national heritage area rather than a special protection area. If the legislation was amended would there be any ecological reason to refuse it and put in place some other compensatory measure to allow that road to get built?

I seldom hear a statement from the Department as damning of another agency as the statement from Mr. Fitzgerald. The Department is normally careful in what it says. Mr. Fitzgerald said that Galway County Council asked for this condition to be included. When the proposal for the Maam Cross to Oughterard stretch went to An Bord Pleanála, did the Department express concerns that remained following the two oral hearings? In other words, have the concerned of the Department not been addressed? Were there outstanding issues or concerns that the inspector was being asked to adjudicate on? I presume Mr. Fitzgerald understands what I am trying to say. Was that the reason the county council suggested the Department should submit method statements? If that is the case, it seems to indicate some lack of communication between the two agencies in developing a plan for the road. Perhaps that is what has led us to this frustrating position.

Furthermore, Mr. Fitzgerald said that the Department could not approve method statements because some simple things had not been done. For example, the council had not approved something it was under an obligation to approve. If it was something simple, it could have been brought to the council to get it approved. Mr. Fitzgerald also referred to inconsistences in the data presented and the omission or uncertainty of key information. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald can confirm whether I am reading it correctly, but he seems to be suggesting that these method statements were deficient. I presume the council used expert consultants to do this work. This raises a question that we will have to ask the county council. Should the council be paying these consultants if they are not delivering top-quality documents?

I have a few questions on pearl mussels. Europe seems to have destroyed most of its pearl mussels but we did not. How prevalent is the pearl mussel in Ireland? It seems to be in every god-damned river in the west of Ireland. How scarce it is in Ireland? I accept we probably have the best remaining examples of machair habitats but are we becoming the whipping boy for Europe because we did not destroy our heritage? I ask the delegation to give a general explanation, I am sure Dr. O'Keeffe will be able to do so, on the prevalence of pearl mussels.

Mr. Fitzgerald said in his presentation, "Since 2006, an ongoing legal process has been under way with the Commission." I take it that has to do with the pearl mussel but nothing to do with the pearl mussel in this particular river or anything that has happened there. In other words, the case relates to other incidents of pearl mussels and has nothing to do with the N59. In fact, one of the amazing things about the N59 is that planning permission was refused for a new bridge because its shadow might interfere with a few pearl mussels underneath.

The Maam Cross to Clifden section went to An Bord Pleanála. When the Department was in An Bord Pleanála process, had it withdrawn all of its concerns? Was it still expressing concern before the inspector about the proposals of the county council and others? Are we again in a situation in which these issues were not resolved beforehand despite the fact that the Department had said it had engaged with the developer? In this case it was the local authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII.

Mr. Fitzgerald has put a damning statement on the record of this House. He stated, "The [board's] decision appears to have been reached as a result of a lack of information and data presented to it in the context of the habitats in the location of the proposed road development." In other words, the Department is saying again that the county council and the experts that it hired, who would have received a massive amount of money, did not do their homework and that this is what has left us in a lot of the mess. I ask Mr. Fitzgerald to confirm this.

I ask the delegation to confirm that between Clifden and Derrylea, which is the western section of the road, there are no significant adjacent natural heritage issues. I ask them to also confirm that the county council is fairly free to go ahead and develop its project between the town and the new and improved section of the road, which is a stand-alone piece, that it is unlikely there would be natural heritage or habitat implications and that the project could go ahead, thus benefitting the people of Connemara.