Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support Senator Walsh's comments on the activism of organisations, such as Amnesty International, in pushing for abortion. Sadly, Amnesty International has lost many of its loyal supporters who previously viewed it as an impartial and reliable voice that acted on behalf of the most vulnerable and forgotten members of society. Frankly, the organisation has become distracted from its important work of supporting victims and prisoners of conscience to join this very troubling and corrupted version of human rights that it now proposes. That is a real shame for an organisation which had such great origins and did so much good work in the past.

I call for a debate on the manner in which the Government pursues projects that involve compulsory purchase. I specifically have in mind the Dublin to Galway greenway project. It is proposed to have a cycle path along disused rail tracks and through open country. I am concerned about the latter aspect which involves the use of a path through open country. Earlier this year I became aware that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport officials, involved with the project, had threatened to use compulsory purchase order legislation to acquire land for the initiative. Much of the land for the part of the project that stretches from Dublin to Ballinasloe was secured through transfers of ground that belonged to Waterways Ireland and the pubic transport authorities. However, the final stretch of the route is from Loughrea to Galway city which cuts through family farms. In such cases it is outrageous to use threats of compulsory purchase proceedings.

A CPO is a draconian intervention against a private individual's constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, it should be used sparingly and only for vital and national infrastructural projects which, to my mind, does not include a cycle path. A far better way to proceed is through negotiation and consultation. Where a proposed route dissects a family farm and thereby reduces the value of the land, compensation should be payable. However, the duty of the State does not end there. The Department must ensure that other measures are taken to ensure that farmers are confident that their business will not be negatively impacted and that their privacy will be respected. I am not satisfied that this is the case. I know from my conversations with landowners affected by the proposal that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has conducted discussions by dictating to farmers to take the "compo" for their land or it will be subject to a CPO.

Farmers have concerns about privacy, safety and the impacts on their business. The land strips on the greenway average 10 m in width and the proposed route cuts right across farms, in many cases. The route will run close to dwellings, near farmyards and through productive farming land. One farmer that I spoke to pointed out that the planned route dissects his land. He said that his dairy herd will have to cross the greenway four times which will add to his workload as he will have to clean it up every time his crows cross the greenway. There are obviously safety concerns where livestock comes into contact with the public. Other farmers face having a public right of way running close to their private dwellings. They are right to insist that they are entitled to more than just monetary compensation. Safety measures and measures to protect privacy are also vital.