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

What I would like the Department to look at is payment for actions done. That was what the previous scheme was; it was technical, not based on compensation. It is absolutely given that they want to save the hen harrier. The farmer does certain actions and gets paid. Everyone wins - BirdWatch Ireland, the Department and the farmers.

The second idea that makes a lot of sense to me and seems to be feasible is recognising that the designations are effectively creating areas of natural constraint, ANCs, and the rate of payment under the ANC should be relative to the constraint. They are imposing constraints which have to do with natural habitats. If a farmer took bog or whatever and was allowed reclaim it, it would not as constrained as it is in this case. I have always argued that if we are going give a payment for natural constraint, the payment should be relative to the constraint. The farmers represented here today are much more constrained than others getting the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, payments, as we used to call them. This is a rational matter that can be addressed within the terms of the scheme.

My understanding over 15 years - nobody has legally challenged this to my knowledge - is that one cannot get compensation for the loss of a planning permission because of a designation. Whether it is a house, wind farm or anything else, they will not give compensation for a refusal. There are wind farms being refused all over the place for archaeological reasons, special area of conservation, SAC, reasons, scenic amenity reasons or whatever and none of those farmers are getting compensation. I would be less than honest if I backed that.