Mr. Michael Barrett:

As is evident from the documentation I have sent in, there was in the early stages a lot of consultation and communication between Waterways Ireland and Westmeath County Council. They seemed to have been passing information and so on. They also seemed to be passing the buck. Waterways Ireland was saying it was a problem for Westmeath County Council, and Westmeath County Council was saying it was a problem for Waterways Ireland. We all say Westmeath County Council is in a bit of a mess now because of the legislation and where it has landed itself. The matter was brought to the attention of Westmeath County Council in 2012. If it had taken appropriate enforcement action at that stage, it would have been well within the seven years and a result would most likely have been got. However, it took a full four and a half years before it got into court. I think that was intentional. I think it was kicked out so it would be outside the seven years, solving the problem for everybody. Waterways Ireland owns the property. I am told, on very good advice from senior counsel, that squatter's rights — that is how we know them as, but the legal term is “adverse possession of property” — apply to individuals after either seven or 12 years. In other words, if somebody takes over a property, he or she can claim squatter's rights after seven or 12 years, but it is 30 years in the case of a State body. Therefore, there is nothing at all to stop Waterways Ireland from trying to recover its property.

We are all forgetting environmental law. We have all agreed today that the property is in a very sensitive area. It is an area covered by two directives from Europe — the SAC and SPA directives — but nobody has considered prosecution under environmental law. That is not subject to a statute of limitations and is very strong. For those reasons, both Waterways Ireland and Westmeath County Council have been woefully inadequate in the sense that it has taken them so long to bring the prosecution. They brought the prosecution under planning law. In the case in Athlone, the District Court judge dismissed the case on technical grounds. I do not believe a competent body like a council, which employs engineers and has access to environmental consultants and all sorts of advisers, would bring a case worded as badly as it was. I find it very hard to believe a competent body would be that inadequate. I have my own ideas about it. I would say there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and that needs to be investigated as well.