Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I met Mr. Fitzgerald three years ago when I was on the then agriculture committee and my views have not changed but have solidified in that regard. I believe these farmers have been badly let down by the State and the European Commission. Both stand indicted for how Mr. Fitzgerald and his colleagues have been treated. I view this from a legal perspective. This is the equivalent of a burden on people's title. It means it is not readily disposable or if it is disposable, it will be at a value significantly less than the market value. That is a huge imposition on anybody. From a legal perspective it is a restriction on alienation, which is a fundamental principle in terms of how one disposes of land. I always thought these farmers had a very strong legal case, and I made that point to them previously. I have not changed my mind on that.

Large tracts of land are effectively being sterilised and made significantly less valuable. Land designation that is put forward in this way, that is, by way of a State authority, namely, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, implementing an EU directive or regulation, absolutely is expropriation of land without an appropriate compensation mechanism. That is laid down in the Constitution and in case law such as Dreher v. the Irish Land Commission, ILC, and in respect of the Office of Public Works.

A significant corpus of constitutional law and case law makes the case of Irish Farmers with Designated Land impossible to argue against. I am strong in respect of where the group stands in that regard.

The biggest thing I see is that when those involved entered the scheme, they had a legitimate expectation that they would be paid the amount agreed. The figure was €350 per hectare for up to 40 ha, with a reducing amount thereafter. A fundamental European law principle applies and it cannot be disturbed. The farmers' group has been treated in an illegal fashion in my view. We cannot do that. We cannot get farmers to sign up to a scheme on a particular basis and, irrespective of the financial situation that prevails, then pull the rug from under them in the way this was done. Farmers signed up on the basis of one set of facts and circumstances with the compensation mechanism. That has been wiped away. Then the farmers find themselves with a significantly different set of circumstances, effectively wiping it out altogether.

There are three perspectives. I have spoken to some people from the same area as the group. The nearest place to me that is affected is the Slieve Bloom Mountains, but we are badly affected with many other things in the midlands. The farmers group should come up to the midlands to hear about various designations. The group of 4,000 would see that they are not the only farmers affected. We are affected all over the place. We live near many rivers and canals and various other things.

Given the three legal principles, the farmers group has a strong case against the State and the EU Commission. The sterilisation of land is a matter the Supreme Court has followed carefully and there is no doubt about its view. The State can step in, make compulsory purchase orders and sterilise land provided there are adequate compensation mechanisms. The argument of the farmers' group is reinforced by the fact that there is a significant opportunity cost in terms of not being able to explore alternatives. Afforestation alternatives would normally be available. Wind turbines are not mentioned where I live because I am absolutely opposed to that nonsense. They are ineffective, inefficient and nonsensical. Thankfully, we banned them from the midlands and we are proud of it. They are nonsense. I recommend not putting them anywhere near me because I am steadfastly opposed to them. I led a campaign and drafted legislation against them. Much of it was based on corporate greed at the expense of community involvement.

I am the opposite of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, in many ways but I believe he will see the logic of this formula. This is the second or third visit of the farmers' group and I have been on the agricultural committee for each visit. The witnesses might think that I am institutionalised but I am not; I like this committee. In any event, if this formula does not work, the next remedy for the group is to go to the courts to take on the State. There will be costs involved - and I realise the group is running a sinking fund as well - but I have no doubt that the group would win. I do not believe the State wants to do that.