Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. They will not hear many members of the committee telling them that they are wrong. That would not solve anything. There is a simple solution. We have a problem. Sites that are less than 30 ha do not need planning while those that are more than 30 ha do need planning. The witnesses referred to solicitors. What proposal are they putting forward? As the previous speaker stated, the working group will not reach a conclusion until the end of May. If there is good weather from 17 March or the first week of April onwards, as was the case last year, those in the industry will be milling peat. The time to do so is when the weather is good, not when it is raining. The working group will not make a decision until the end of May, which is a disaster.

Several speakers have spoken about Ireland doing this or doing that. A green agenda is being driven at the moment and unless Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies stand up to it, as well as Independents and Sinn Féin Deputies, the witnesses will be attending committee meetings and speaking about this issue for the rest of their lives. Nothing will be solved. A High Court case is pending. Tree huggers have brought Bord na Móna to court in respect of the 30 ha issue in the context of peat. Under the habitats directive, one needs an environmental impact assessment, EIA, an appropriate assessment and all the ding-dongs that go with that which have been signed in by our now President. What are the witnesses proposing to resolve this issue? The rule under European legislation in respect of sites in excess of 30 ha is catching every producer in the industry. That is the bottom line. Whether the committee lifts the witnesses in the air or tells them they are the greatest thing since the sliced pan, there is European legislation that has been adopted by Ireland and that is the problem. What are the witnesses saying needs to be done to be compliant with the habitats directive? By Jesus, I know more about the habitats directive than anyone else in this place. That issue has to be resolved. I am being straight and blunt.

In fairness to the previous Minister, legislation was brought in to cater for the industry. However, it was rattled out of court. An environmental lobby group brought it to court and took it on and kicked it out. There was not even a fight put up. That court ruling stands. What legislation or what way are the witnesses saying their solicitors propose to resolve the EIAs, appropriate assessments, screening out and all of that to get them out of the hole in which they are in with regard to sites in excess of 30 ha? If we get this wrong, there will be another court case.

What level of increase would there be in the price of plants, vegetables or whatever as a result of having to import peat? All present know that importing it would be madness.

My understanding is that the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is willing to try to bring in legislation but we have a Minister heading that Department - I am saying this straight out; many people know it but not many will say it - who says he will block it. How do we get over that hurdle? I believe we need the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to get involved on this issue because, as the witnesses stated, it is 1.5% of the country. Let us put together a plan. If there is an alternative further down the road that is able to be competitive, keep jobs in Ireland and grow plants, as well being suitable in terms of the technical stuff to which the witnesses referred, then that is fine and we will go down that road. However, one cannot just turn off the light switch and go around the room in the dark. That is what we are doing at the moment. Bord na Móna is out of the game. I have spoken to its representatives on several occasions. Tom Donnellan does not even want to know about turf or peat at the moment.

The other side of it is that I was before this committee in 2010, not as a member but as a witness, to give evidence regarding turf cutting. We had to take on the State and go out and cut our turf to get justice for ourselves. It is a sad thing that ordinary people had to do that. What legal avenue do the witnesses know of that can be followed? What way can the legislation be written such that it will comply with Articles 6(1) to 6(4), inclusive, of the habitats directive?