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

I thank all the different speakers who have spoken, regardless of whether it was giving us stick or supporting us. I thank those who came to the House to speak in this debate. A few points need to be addressed. Let us be honest with the people out there. A regulation has no flexibility.

I heard references to various areas of biodiversity loss. I have looked into the hedgerow part of it. When someone says something nowadays, we must bear in mind that the test that was done was based on 10 sq. km in Monaghan and it was just said that the rest of the country is that way. That could be completely wrong. Down my way, there are more hedges than ever there was. We need to be very careful about what we say.

A lot of Deputies referred to water quality.

They should take a look at the map that came out last week showing where the water quality was supposed to be not so good. Was there bogland or peaty land on that? The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, should have a look at where the peaty land was and the quality of water in that area. He and his colleagues might educate themselves on that.

I welcome what the Minister of State said about the original document being a step too far, noting that the Council of Ministers got together and that the proposal being worked on now is a more realistic document. Over the past month, in regard to that more realistic document, I have heard MEPs, Deputies, Ministers and others saying, "Do not worry, guys, this is voluntary." That is the only thing we are asking. We are asking the Government to legislate to ensure this will be voluntary for private landowners. The Government has been saying that, but then I listened to the Minister of State's speech. He talked about Bord na Móna and Coillte, indicating that the work would mostly be done by them. However, there is an "if" there and we are afraid of that "if". It is the "if" of which farmers around rural Ireland are afraid. When I spoke earlier, I said there was no problem with the Government bringing in a scheme and that nobody is going to stop it from doing so. However, the "if" is to do with the question of whether the scheme will be voluntary. If it is to be voluntary, why is that not stated in legislation or written down somewhere? If it is to be voluntary, why will the Government not support our motion and agree to put that in legislation to ensure we take the fear out of it? That is all we are asking for in this motion.

I have heard people say this is the second time we have discussed this issue in the space of a week. Last week, we debated a motion on the culling of the national herd. That is nothing to do with the nature restoration law. That law will be voted on next week in Brussels. In other countries such as Holland and Germany, there has been a pushback against it. The Minister of State knows the amount of work that has been done around the country on rewetting. Ordinary people worked with the different bodies involved to do it, as he has recognised. It is not that we are against all this. The one point I want the Minister of State to be clear on is that there is a fear out there among people with agricultural drained peatlands and land on the hills. They are the two groups. He can put this to bed fairly quickly by saying, "Okay, we will put it in legislation". He is already saying it is voluntary. All he has to do is put the issue to bed by taking out the confusion and mixed messaging in order that people know they have a future in their communities. At the moment, there is fear out there.

There are areas not far from my home where people have reclaimed their land and it is all they have. Their farms are 100% drained peatland. The EU gave them grants years ago, back in the 1980s, to shore and put in a pipe. People came in with a digger and did it. Some did it with a spade and shovel. Those people have reared their families off that land. They are contributing in their own way to their communities as well as someone in the Golden Vale is doing. The land might not provide their full income and they might have to work outside it, but they are doing the best they can. Their youngsters might be on the ladies' or men's football team, soccer team or rugby team. Their husbands or wives might be going down to the hardware shop and so on to buy stuff to keep someone else's youngster in a job. There is a fear out there that this will be taken away.

The Minister of State has the ball in his hand and the opportunity to say he will put this into legislation and take the fear factor out of it. We have been told it will be done on State land and those lands will make up a lot of it. However, I worry about what Bord na Móna has said. When the State land is being done, it needs to take a leaf out of the book of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and talk to people. Bord na Móna has not done that and there have been problems in parts of Offaly and other parts of the country. It is the one thing that needs to be done to quell the fear. No one can stand up here and say what will be proposed. The Council of Ministers has a proposal and there is a proposal from the Commission that is drastically worse. I do not think anyone knows how the votes will go. I do not know what the MEPs will do. I have heard criticism of different groups. If the European Parliament's environment committee was split down the middle, it is clearly a fairly contentious issue.

I thank the Minister of State for listening to what I have said. I ask him to withdraw his amendment and agree to what we are proposing. I would say in response to Deputy Leddin that we have stated in our document that all the Council of Ministers' proposal needs is tweaking to ensure no private lands are included. It would be happy days if that were done. We must also ensure that when the public lands are done, the farmers around those lands are not subject to rewetting. The NPWS did that when it did the work. It made sure of it. Bord na Móna, however, does not appear to be doing it and no one seems to be giving the people there the kick in the ass they need. I ask the Minister of State to withdraw his amendment, agree with what we have said and legislate for what we have sought.

See this speech in context