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

I do not know where this is going, because people watching this evening are more confused now. The Minister came out with his statement to support this. Billy Kelleher, Fianna Fáil's MEP, has opposed it. The EPP has pulled out of talks today and said the proposal has gone too far. Our Taoiseach, 19 hours ago, stated very clearly that what is proposed goes way too far. The Minister talks about negotiating in Europe. My understanding is the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will be doing it. There was a vote last week in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development last week; the committee voted against the proposal. There was a vote in the Committee on Maritime Affairs and Fisheries; it also voted against the proposal. My understanding in Europe - I am not an expert in it - is that it is an opinion, but it will be environment. I thank the Swedish, Dutch and Polish, but the Irish representatives or the Minister should not be thanked. Others have pushed back against this and, I hope, it is now dead in the water.

The Minister says the proposal will not be legally binding on people. Tell me of a proposal brought into a country that does not end up legally binding. What has the habitats directive done? It has put legally binding obligations on everyone's land that is designated throughout this country. There are 38 rules for farmers to comply with under legally binding stuff. The Minister should not tell people the proposal will not be legally binding. If the Minister reads the document and goes to Article 12, it says any subsidies given by the member state or the EU that may have a negative effect on that site have to be reported by the Government to the EU. What will happen? They will be withdrawn. If a farmer has sheep on a mountain or cattle ploughing up peaty ground, because it is rewetted, the farmer may end up having his subsidy withdrawn. The Minister should have a look at Article 4(2) which refers to rewilding where the Minister is from; the mountains in the west of Ireland. Bear in mind, one third of the country will be most affected. Kerry, west Cork, the west coast and the midlands will be caught with much of this.

The Minister talks about achieving this with State land. Bord na Móna can achieve a certain amount in 2030, but under Article 9(4) - it is highlighted - there are legally binding targets for drained agricultural peatland. No one can deny that. This is not scaremongering. I broke this story last July. We were told it would not happen. More people read the story and got involved. If it is scaremongering, why is the Taoiseach and the EPP going against it? Why does everyone say it is the Opposition? I see some parties in this House that will vote one way in Europe and say a different thing in this House, which I cannot understand.

No impact assessment was done on these proposals, which everyone looked for. No one talks about the terrain, or else people do not understand it. There are houses built in those areas in rural Ireland, on peaty soil. Some people's farms are 100% peat soil. If the Minister wants to do this in the State, he should do it on State ground. He must make sure it does not have a negative effect. The Government should be ashamed of itself, in that it has not forced Bord na Móna to give a letter to farmers or do scientific research before it does its work. In fairness to the national parks - we were involved in working with them - they talked to and worked with farmers. However, Bord na Móna, with the money its in arse pocket that Europe and the Government has thrown at it, seems to think it can bully everyone. That will not happen, nor will what the Government proposes happen. I hope it will be dead in the water in Europe, before the Government even gets the chance to look at it.

See this speech in context