Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment. Much of the debate or the mood music has been to the effect that we are somehow irresponsible or that we are enemies of the environment. This designation of land as national heritage areas is above and beyond what we are strictly required to do under birds and habitats directives, which give us SACs and so on. We are actually being responsible.

We know there are issues in the environment. They receive coverage. We know that in areas such as biodiversity or climate change, things are not as they ought to be. However, sometimes the debate in the House becomes academic. What is happening on the ground around designated land is quite a different story. The amendment seeks to provide to the Minister permission to recognise that in some instances a community may gain from a project, which would override certain concerns. It is not that we do not mitigate to protect the environment or wildlife - we do - but that there is a greater objective. We should not be ashamed to say that in addition to conservation objectives and objectives around the public good, we acknowledge that socio-economic objectives are included in the public good. There is never a debate about that.

The western seaboard has a great deal of designated land and special areas of conservation, which has proven a serious impediment to the socio-economic growth of some areas. Senator Burke alluded to certain projects such as a national primary road, Cloongullane Bridge, which has been held up for some time while An Bord Pleanála grants planning permission because an area designated as a special area of conservation, the River Moy SAC, and the presence of freshwater pearl mussel and alluvial woodland. Prior to that, in 2010, An Bord Pleanála refused a major road project, the N26 phase 2, from Mount Falcon to Bohola. Some €5 million had been spent on that before it was refused because of hooper swans and overdesign due to SACs.

For anyone unfamiliar with the west and the particular areas we are discussing, the designation of SACs and so on can give the impression that we are discussing some wilderness away from people. It is not. The River Moy SAC passes through one major town, Ballina, as well as Foxford and Swinford. These are towns that have existed for hundreds of years with major population settlements and roads. We are unable to remove dangerous turns from the road because of environmental objectives being put over and above proper roads and infrastructure for people, which is what the Government wants to deliver. Nobody thinks projects such as the bridge at Cloongullane are not needed. Some €2 million was secured for a new bridge in Glenisland in Mayo where there is a bad road, the R312. Again, freshwater pearl mussel is an impediment. I do not have to tell the Minister of State about how environmental designation is proving an impediment. Think of the Galway ring road. For Galway to continue to thrive, it requires proper road infrastructure around it. Since the road was refused, I understand there is now planning permission for a road that requires tunnelling under Menlo and Ballybrittas. The road from Galway out to Clifden requires the bends being taken out of it. It is highly dangerous. There have been 18 consultations with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. An Bord Pleanála has never granted planning permission with more conditions.

The root of the problem is not with local authorities or the Government trying to ride roughshod over environmental objectives but with legislation that is so overwhelmingly in favour of habitats and the species in them. I am not saying that national heritage areas are exactly the same as SACs but I wish to put paid to the idea that if the House does not scrutinise and amend this, the environment will be degraded somehow. That is not correct. I can take anyone who is seriously interested in the issue through several projects. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, provided me with a good list of all the projects that have been held up. These areas have been left behind and it is costing the Exchequer millions. The people have to live too. There are ways to mitigate and we must be responsible. Many people in the country are proud and responsible when it comes to the environment.

Any time these planning applications or proposals for development go before the appropriate authorities, the county council, An Bord Pleanála, or other bodies such as the Office of Public Works, OPW, in the case of flood relief measures, they are afraid of their lives they will be sued and brought to the European Court of Justice because an i has not been dotted or a t crossed in relation to environmental designation. It is a quagmire. We are practically paralysed in the delivery of projects. People must examine and re-examine.

The Minister of State, Deputy Moran, was in Crossmolina. The town has been on the capital plan for the delivery of flood defences since September 2015. Prior to that, the OPW had a scheme in mind that it shelved. There was more environmental work done. It wanted to do a channel to bypass the town when the water reached a certain height. It is absolutely devastating there. If there is another flood there, and this has been threatened many times, no one has insurance and the town centre is old, so they are in a terrible predicament. After an environmental impact assessment report in May 2018, we thought there would be construction this summer, based on a response to me at a joint committee by OPW commissioners, although that was not written in stone. Needless to say, that has not happened. Last February they told us that we needed to do more environmental designation because they were going to put some sort of mechanical piece in the river. At some point we must call it. I am not disrespecting or saying that there is not a scientific need for certain things, but it will be poor comfort for people in the event that they are flooded again this winter. I sincerely hope nothing like that happens. No one wants that. No matter what one's political views, it is a terrible thing.

As such, it is grating to listen to some of the debate here on designating or not designating and that if the legislation is not phrased a particular way or if the Government is not stopped early on, it will do something highly reckless.It will only be highly reckless if that means supporting people in the way they should be supported and getting the balance right. The balance is by no means right at present. If anyone wishes to talk about projects, I can speak about them first hand.

I support this amendment. It is very important to have a provision that allows for a community or a Minister, following the appropriate consultation provided for in the legislation, to decide there is a socioeconomic objective that needs to be pursued and fulfilled, where nobody is objecting to it and it is necessary to work around whatever designation is in place. Nobody is going to be reckless. There is such a thing as engineering mitigation and that is the way we need to proceed. I expect that these will be exceptional circumstances. That is the reality. People could be bewildered by this if they are watching the debate, as if we are going to become hooligans and do something terrible to the countryside. The west and rural Ireland is not a theme park or somewhere to go for the weekend. It is where people live and want to raise their families. They want to have a chance. The aim of Government policy, and everybody might not agree with it, is that we develop not just the big cities, but also rural areas in an appropriate fashion. We are all mature and responsible enough to do that. I fully endorse the amendment.