Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

This issue was discussed in 2000 and there was a significant amount of debate on this specific proposal.

I am disappointed the issue of afforestation has not been considered in respect of the regulations. There is concern in the Minister's county, as well as in many other counties, because the provisions do not allow a mechanism for public objection to forestry in instances when a community or individual is completely isolated by the type of forestry development taking place. The only mechanism available at this time is to object to the grant support that they may be eligible to apply for through the Department of Agriculture and Food. Will the Minister look at that specific issue?

The issue of peat extraction is close to my heart. This proposal has been brought forward because of the decision by the European Court of Justice. What has been the major change with regard to that decision from September 1999? This issue was discussed and debated in the House in 2000. A proposal was put forward at that time and the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said that with regard to the environmental impact assessment, he was examining the requirement to reduce the threshold of 50 hectares. He said that this would address the concerns of the European Court in a transparent manner and that there should be no further difficulty when it was done. However, it seems that there is further difficulty. Where did the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, slip up with regard to this issue? He seemed to be incompetent in respect of many areas when he was in charge of this brief, but how did he slip up with regard to this specific matter?

The word "significant" gives rise to huge concern in my constituency where people who cut turf, either for their own use or on a small commercial basis, could be roped in under this definition. Many bog owners and people with turbary rights cut turf on an acre plot. Half of the plot has been traditionally cut out and most active plots are approximately half an acre in size. Once the turbary rights are exhausted people must find some other form of fuel. However, the difficulty is that if one takes turf cutting on a contiguous basis on a bank of turf where individuals all along that bank have half-acre plots, one could very easily reach some of the thresholds in the regulations. Then some official in the local authority or an alleged do-gooder from some part of the European Union, who is visiting here and wants turf-cutting to be abolished because all the turf in his or her country has been cut, could decide that the turf-cutting has a significant effect. All of a sudden, individuals who are cutting three or four spreads of turf for their use and that of their neighbours will have to apply for planning permission and conduct an environmental impact assessment. That is the concern about these regulations.

The way that environmental impact is defined in the regulations could give rise to a situation where people who are cutting turf on a small, commercial basis or for their own use will be required to have an environmental impact assessment carried out because of the issue of taking a number of turf banks together along a particular bog. In that scenario, it is not just one individual half-acre plot. There could be a number of plots along the bank to be cut. That would be the normal procedure in that an operator would come in with a digger and a hopper, cut along the length of the bank, the turf would be spread out, dried, saved and then transported.

Livelihoods are at stake. Many contractors have put significant investment into upgrading their equipment. There has been much talk about the impact of turf cutting on blanket and raised bogs, but there has been very little acknowledgment of the fact that operators have moved away from the use of the sausage machine, owing to the assistance and encouragement provided by my colleague on this side of the House, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, and now use the hopper procedure which does not have the same type of negative environmental impact. As well as that, we must realise that we are talking about small plots on the edge of bogs. The majority of bogs in this country are either State owned or State controlled. We are referring to half-acre plots in many cases, and sometimes even smaller than that, on the edge of bogs. Cutting turf in such plots using a hopper will not have a detrimental environmental impact.

I do not know the reason for these new definitions and changes in the rules. The former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said that he addressed this issue in 2000, so how have the sands shifted regarding the same European Court of Justice decision? I would like an answer to that question. I would also like a firm commitment from the Minister that this will not have an impact on turf-cutting on a small, commercial basis or by individuals on their own or a neighbour's bank in County Roscommon and elsewhere.

Will the Minister examine a proposal that was put forward to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, for the development of a wetland wilderness park in the cutaway bogs of the north midlands? It would have a major economic benefit from a tourism point of view in that region. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to that proposal which is being submitted to his office.

See this speech in context