Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Ministers of State and the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will have to be patient. I am recovering from a bad bout of laryngitis but I have to speak on this motion. This regulation is the most profound and far-reaching legislation on land use change ever proposed by the European Commission. Even though they do not know it, it will impact every man, woman and child, both rural and urban, in terms of land use, planning and infrastructural planning. It will significantly impact settlement patterns along with urban, rural and regional development. I am sorry to have to say this, but the Government decided that it was worth just 90 words of an amendment that contains no commitments and is completely bland. I do not often stand up in this House and strongly criticise responses because, while they may be unsatisfactory, at least some of the time an effort is made to address the issues set out in the motion. However, the Government amendment sidesteps the core issues, avoids the hard questions and glosses over the critical issues that must be answered. In plain, old-fashioned paternalistic political speak, it is basically saying, "Don't worry, boys and girls; we will look after you." The Minister of State and I both know that will not cut it. Those 90 words do not give any commitments that people want to hear today. I have listened to many politicians and commentators talk about this proposal. I have heard them engage in scaremongering and try to portray people who question the Commission's proposal as not caring about the environment. We do care. What we really care about is having good legislation to underpin the policies. The Commission's proposal was not that. Its aims are good, but what we need to examine is the where, when, who and how. That is all we are doing today.

A little bit of context never goes astray. Three committees in the European Parliament could not agree any common position on this legislation. Two rejected it outright and the third was evenly split, so no proposal will go to the plenary sitting in July or September. I spent 15 years in the European Parliament and I never saw that happen to any legislation, let alone important legislation. Even on the services directive, which was horrible legislation initially, some sort of position was taken in the Parliament. That tells us that this legislation, despite its good intentions, is flawed. That is being generous. We will hear cheap shots being made about the European People's Party ruling the roost. It has 176 seats out of 705, less than 25% of the Parliament. If three committees cannot come to an agreed position and two reject the legislation outright, that tells us that this is a position that broadly reflects the view of the Parliament. While I am no longer involved in the day-to-day workings of the European Parliament, I am told that this proposal will struggle to get through in any shape or form. It may get through but it will struggle. That is no basis for agreement or any kind of conciliation.

To be fair, the Council of Ministers has made a reasonable effort at reining in the overreach and competence creep of the Commission in this case, and has produced a common position that could form the basis of an agreement. I am not sure how Ireland contributed. All I heard from our Ministers was that they were gung ho. Perhaps we have to thank the Belgians, Austrians, Dutch, Poles, Finns, Italians, Danes and Swedes for injecting some reason and perspective into this discussion. Now, at least, we have reached a point where there is a document with a wafer-thin majority in support of it. In order to take this through on qualified majority voting in the Council, those in favour had to represent 65% of the population of the EU. In fact, they represent 66.13%. The majority is wafer-thin and includes Denmark, which only supported this proposal at the end. It has serious concerns about paying farmers for restoration. For many countries, including Ireland, I am led to believe that is an important issue. Why is there no mention of recompensing farmers in the Government's 90-word amendment? The Minister of State has said already that it needs to happen. Why is there no Government commitment to do so in the amendment? Why is there no word on voluntary participation in any schemes? Again, that is something that has been mentioned time and again. Where is the Government commitment to this today? Is there no agreement between Government parties on it? Why did the Government not at least add another 90 words to its amendment and make some definite commitments? I am not talking about the Minister of State or another Minister. Why could the Government not make commitments to those whose lives, livelihoods and communities will be most affected?

Many people are concentrating on the issue of rewetting the land, and I can see why. It took generations to drain that land to support farm families. Now, the Commission proposal and, to a lesser extent, the Council proposal would see significant tracts of land rewetted. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, what we are looking at here are drained organic soils, and we know where they are in the country. They are along the Atlantic coast, in the north west, west and south west, in parts of the midlands and some pockets elsewhere. The Minister of State came to Leitrim. I thank him for his work on Shass Mountain. He did good work. However, when he came down on his first visit, I pointed out to him the biodiversity that was all around us. There is extensive farming in most of these areas. Yet, under this proposal, they would be the areas hit first and hardest. Again, we have to ask if this is making sense and if it will deliver.

It important to state that the Council position is the position of only one of the three legislative bodies. Why, for example, could the Government not guarantee, in its amendment to the motion, that all Coillte and Bord na Móna lands will be available for rewetting when the time comes? I do not know about the Minister of State, but I will not be here when the time comes for that to happen. I wonder if people will hear, at that time, that there are challenges and issues. I want to hear the Government's position on this.

While much of this debate is on rewetting, the major commitments are on restoring habitats and ecosystems.

That is where the rubber will hit the road. If we look at the definition of "restoration" in Article 3.3, which I do not have time to go through but I know the Minister of State has read, "good condition" in Article 3.4 and "favourable reference area" in Article 3.5, we see quite strict criteria laid down. This was a regulation. If we link that to Article 4, which we must, because it gives us the restoration targets, 90% of the area of each group of habitat type listed in annex 1 currently not in good condition must be restored by then.

Crucially, Article 4.2 is further refined in Article 11.2(a). However, we see that, for example, if we take hill lands, which are common lands in the part of the country I represent and largely originally peatlands, we see there could be a legal requirement on a farmer to re-establish them from an agricultural ecosystem or grassland back to an annex 1 heathland. Article 11 is very clear. I do not have time to read it, but it goes through the habitat types and favourable reference areas going back as far as 70 years, in other words, not what it is now but what it was 70 years ago where the Council is talking about historical distribution. This regulation needs to be totally tightened up. I want to hear the Government clearly articulate the Irish position and what it proposes to do. The Minister of State cannot guarantee the European position, I know that, but I still do not know what the Government position is, particularly on Articles 3, 4 and 11, which I have spoken about here.

See this speech in context