Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)

First, what is the position on the fines ordered against Ireland by the European Court of Justice in November 2008 and what are the legal costs associated with the case and the subsequent proceedings by the European Commission?

I have sought clarification on the definition of "wetlands" pursuant to the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Agriculture) Regulations. The constituency I am from is the largest, geographically, in the country, with large areas of waterways, lakes, rivers and designated land. The definition of "wetlands" has a significant impact on counties such as Mayo. I acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, in negotiating with the Commission to allow ordinary reclamation and drainage work on non-designated wetland areas to go ahead, despite the restrictions applied it.

I am asking that the definition of "wetlands" be kept as restricted as possible because farmers on marginal lands will be affected by this. We should bear in mind that we are trying to achieve targets under Food Harvest 2020 which would see primary food production increase by over one third, and farmers must be allowed to farm. It is difficult for anybody not involved in farming or, to qualify it even further, anybody who does not know about marginal land to understand the restrictions on farmers living in designated areas such as SACs, NHAs, Natura 2000 scheme lands and now wetlands. They cannot build homes or wind farms on their holdings, among other things. Now, the only thing they were allowed to do - farming - has also been restricted.

In recent years the National Parks and Wildlife Service has placed restrictions on hill farmers on designated lands to avoid overgrazing by sheep. Now we find that this was totally the wrong tack, as evidenced by the fires that occurred in counties Donegal and Mayo throughout the summer. The grasslands in question had grown so thickly that they burned easily, and this did more damage than any sheep would ever do on highlands and hills. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has suggested more sheep be put on the hills that they were taken off before, but this is not an easy thing to do, as they have never been so expensive.

I suggest the Minister, Deputy Coveney, talk to farmers rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Farmers and their families before them have farmed hills and mountains for centuries. They know how to farm them and the appropriate numbers of sheep to graze on them, while those from the National Parks and Wildlife Service have spent their lives in carpet up to their noses. Farmers know how to get the best from the land in terms of productivity and are not out to do damage to the landscape. In addition, now that the grass has grown so tough, the sheep cannot even eat it; therefore, we could have starving sheep on the sides of mountains.

The situation at which we have arrived is ridiculous and shows the disconnect between practical farmers and those who sit in offices. Farmers are not being listened to and are highly frustrated as a result. It is appropriate that those who are carrying the burden of making sure our environment, ecology and natural heritage remain intact be compensated. Where they are being restricted in their farming while trying to eke out a living, they should also be appropriately compensated. This may be a joint effort between the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there must be recognition of what farmers are doing. It is said bureaucracy is ridiculous; this is a case in point. As politicians, we must listen to those with practical experience and proceed from there.

See this speech in context