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

At least the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, is well familiar with the area.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this motion on the nature restoration law to the Dáil. At the outset I want to make it clear that those of us who signed this motion are not against nature. Every one of us lives in nature; we promote nature; we were brought up with nature. We come from the land and from knee-high we were always told to make sure we look after birds, bees and whatever, and we have done that. I do not want the narrative to go out that we are opposed to these proposals. However, our motion relates to how they will affect the communities we come from. There are a few different proposals relating to the nature restoration law as set out by the Commission. This has caused a lot of confusion. There is a proposal from the EU Commission and there is also a Council of Ministers proposal. There is also talk of a Parliament proposal. The two heavyweight proposals are the ones from the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

When the three Deputies set out to put this motion together, we did it in as fair a way as possible. After hearing about this for months and months, it is disappointing that the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. Over the past four or five weeks I have heard the words "scaremongering" and "misinformation". We want the Government to commit that regardless of which proposal might be there, no farmers on privately owned land would be forced to rewet their land. Unfortunately, the Government amendment which came in yesterday does not in any way put that to bed for farming communities around the country.

We need to remember that all areas, from the top of Donegal down to parts of west Cork, out as far as Kildare and down to Monaghan and Cavan, will be affected. I want to be very clear on which proposal I am talking about. With the Commission's proposal, we are looking at the rewetting of agricultural drained land covering about 300,000 ha. I acknowledge that the Council of Ministers is trying to bring that down. However, the Commission proposal would involve agricultural drained peatland. Let no Minister stand up here and say that the State owns agricultural drained peatland because it does not. It was actually the EU that gave farmers grants years ago to drain and shore that land for them to farm. It was especially done in the 1980s and that land was brought on. It was basically like three legs on a stool to balance the stool. Many of the farmers were small farmers who struggled to make a living from the land. We will probably hear today that they will be better off to go down the road of rewetting, that they can get more out if it or whatever. Hills are green far away.

When the habitats directive came into being in Ireland I remember being told by our now President, Michael D, Higgins, that it would not affect anyone. Then the turf-cutting communities in different places were told that they could not cut turf. Farmers were told not to worry and that while they had the designation on it, they would be paid. For the first five years they were paid; there is no doubt about that. However, then they left the farmers high and dry with 36 different regulations on their lands.

The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, would be familiar with this. I have worked with the National Parks and Wildlife Service throughout the country to put farmers' minds at ease on rewetting. I give the Minister of State credit on this. The National Parks and Wildlife Service people went house by house to talk to farmers. I will acknowledge that. That needed to be done on the rewetting of raised bogs. We worked with them and it has been very successful, as the Minister of State will acknowledge. It is not that we are against all of this but I am totally against rewetting agricultural drained peatland for the simple reason that once that goes back to where it was, let no one tell me that it can be rewetted by a few inches. I have heard people say it does not mean farmers could not have cattle or whatever walking on it. I have learnt from the scientists - the National Parks and Wildlife Service has pretty good ones - that to bring peatland back to what it was, they need to bring the water level up but not to flood it. The word "flood" should never be used in this context. It should not be flooded but it needs to be moistened on top. No one can tell me that a bullock, a cow, a ewe or whatever will be running around. I heard the plan would be to have water buffalo; we would look well going down that road.

We might hear, "Oh well, sure we'll look after the farmer." However, what scheme goes beyond five years? Based on reading the Commission's proposal, once it is done it is done, goodbye, close the gate. It is not Deputies Fitzmaurice, Harkin and McNamara or others being unrealistic. When the Commission's proposal went to the fisheries committee, that committee kicked it out the door. The agriculture committee did the same. Deputy Harkin knows much more about Europe than I do. It is split down the middle which is very unusual because generally when a proposal goes in, they have rapporteurswho try to put it through.

A message needs to go out from the Government and from all politicians that in Ireland this year any farmer who wants to comply or wants to get what we used to call the single farm payment, now called basic income support for sustainability, BISS, must now put a minimum of 10% of land aside for what we call space for nature. If they do not do that, they no longer qualify for the eco scheme. Farmers are doing that - I have seen farms in the west of Ireland with 27% and 28% space for nature.

They are making their efforts in that regard. If we look at the Commission proposal, 10% would be especially protected. If we look up the meaning of that, we see that we currently have special protected areas under the habitats directive but this new proposal is saying clearly that people could not even walk on the land. I have looked at the proposal of the Council of Ministers. To be fair, it is a more realistic proposal and brings rewetting to probably 90,000 to 95,000 ha. The Government has stated clearly that Coillte and Bord na Móna would cover that. The problem is that I have correspondence from Bord na Móna stating that it estimates it will have about 40,000 ha. I have talked to Coillte, which, between rewilding and everything else, has 30,000 ha. What I am worried about is the gap after that.

No one is creating hysteria that this is going to be coming in tomorrow or next week, and I know Bord na Móna can pick up the slack on a certain amount of it. However, under the current proposals, and even under the Council of Ministers’ proposals, there are still obligations on the rewilding of hills. Every one of us comes from an area where there are hills so that needs teasing out. It needs to be stated clearly that no one would be obliged to do this on any privately owned hill or lowland.

We have been very realistic about this. Any Government down the road, or even next week if it wanted to, could do this by having a constant voluntary scheme over 30 or 35 years. I will not object to that and it is entirely up to a Government to do it. However, we need a clear path. People might ask why, if farmers got a few quid, they would be against it. The big problem is that in communities like the one I come from, whether people like it or not, there are full townlands that are basically peaty soil or reclaimed land, with farmers making a living, rearing families, sending kids to school and going down to the local shop and the local hardware. It is what we call a community. There is a fear in this regard. We know the age profile of farmers. Every one of us in this House is trying to make sure we encourage youngsters to take over farms because every door closed in a community or a local area is another bang to that community. In fairness, there is the derelict property grant and all of the different things to try to bring people back. People may end up in a situation where they do not have to look at cattle, sheep and cows, and they can even plant vegetables if they want, although a lot of the land would not be fit for that. However, if we look at the areas involved, they are predominantly areas with suckler cows and sheep.

We have seen the forestry targets and we know that what the Commission proposes would take out some 2 million acres. Let no one tell me it will be the Golden Vale where we go down and start rewetting because the soil quality is good. It is not going to be in the plains of Meath, where there is good quality land. The other day, I looked at the map showing water quality and I could see where the red and blue areas were, and so on. The Minister of State should have a look at the map of the peaty soil nature of the land. It goes from the top of Donegal, down through Monaghan, Cavan and that area, comes down through Longford, Offaly and a bit of Kildare, takes in all of the west and goes down through Clare and parts of Tipperary to Kerry, and there are pockets in other places, such as parts of west Cork. Outside of that, there are smaller pockets and I am not saying there are no other places, but the vast majority of the land is going to be in that area. If the Government is bringing in legislation, people in that area are going to be more adversely affected.

To be fair, Sinn Féin has put in an amendment that talks about social and economic analysis. The EU talks about this as well but it is kangaroo court stuff what the EU has done. It talks about a social and economic analysis, which means it rings up a few people, and that is it. Where was it done with the people in those areas? It was not done. I ask the Government to rethink rejecting this motion and putting in an amendment. What we have said is very clear and we are realistic and reasonable people. I ask the Government one thing. Whatever negotiations are going on in Europe and whatever promises are being made at the moment, who knows what will get through the Parliament? No one knows. It is Tweedledum and Tweedledee, this one and that one. No one knows. I do not think anyone can put their hand on their heart and say with the best will in the world what will happen.

The Council of Ministers’ proposal is the most reasonable but it needs to be tweaked because out there, the farming community is watching. The Minister has to give farmers those assurances. The one thing I ask is that the Minister of State say clearly that the Government will be put into any legislation that no privately owned land will be involved unless we bring out a voluntary scheme ourselves. That is very important. I will finish my points later in the debate but I now hand over to Deputy Pringle.

See this speech in context