Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak on the nature restoration law and, as my party spokesperson on agriculture, to very clearly outline our position. In recent days I have been quite bemused at the reaction to our vote in the European Parliament. From the very first discussion on the proposed nature restoration law at EU level, we engaged proactively at every point. We met the farm organisations and we submitted amendments at EU level at every single opportunity available to us - unlike some other MEPs - and we engaged constructively. We did not sit back and say we do not like this, nor did we scaremonger. I have listened to what the Minister said about scaremongering about the CAP and voluntary measures, but at no stage did we scaremonger on any of those issues. I did not do so, and nor would I.

We set out five red lines at EU level through amendments. I set them out here last year in an amendment to a motion when this topic was previously discussed in the House. We also set them out in press releases several times. In fact, we could not have been any clearer. We looked for specific, dedicated funding; for measures to be voluntary, not mandatory; for there to be widespread public participation; for a socioeconomic assessment; and for compensation. I acknowledge that some of that has been included and I welcome it. I also recall a press release from a colleague last June in which he welcomed changes that we had achieved at EU level. They included a compensation scheme for farmers and a new chapter on funding, including a mandate for a permanent dedicated nature restoration fund outside of the CAP. When the text came before the European Parliament in July, we were satisfied that our red lines were met. We were particularly glad that an amendment we proposed on compensation was included in the text. It referred to "the financial compensation of potential losses by landowners and land managers directly due to the implementation of this Regulation".

This was a key amendment, as the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will be aware, because he attended a meeting that I also attended with farmers from the midlands who came here last year. They were particularly concerned at possible implications for their land due to rewetting by Bord na Móna in their area. That amendment was extremely important for us. In July, we were very satisfied with the inclusion of the amendment to the text that I outlined. However, the text last week in the European Parliament included nothing to do with funding or compensation. In fact, the part on compensation had been totally removed.

As my party spokesperson on agriculture, I met farmers and heard that they wanted compensation. We agreed to propose an amendment in that regard and we worked with them on it.

When I saw the text last week, I was certainly not going to say that compensation is not there but never mind, it is grand, we will support it anyway. I would not do that. The amendment was there and brought forward in good faith but it disappeared from the text last week. I make no apology for our vote last week, nor would I be concerned with criticism, especially from across the floor, of our vote. I do not see how we could expect an MEP, who worked, put in amendments and had achievements in that regard, to support the law when the text that emerged last week was different to the text the MEP supported in July. Frankly, there would be no point in having red lines in the first place.

Funding is also important. Many more than those in Sinn Féin said that funding was needed. It needed to be dedicated, long-term funding from the EU and it should come to accompany what is a major and ambitious plan in respect of nature restoration. The EU has missed an opportunity here at a time when farmers are fed up about the red tape and the many regulations coming from Europe. We know many farmers have been protesting this very issue. The EU had an opportunity to say that while it is asking farmers to do more, it will financially back them to do it. That was not there. Instead, it is heaping more work on the farmers and stating that we will look at funding after 2027. That is not good enough. Nothing was stopping that text from stating that there would be a commitment to funding under the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF but that commitment was not forthcoming. I would have genuine fears for when the next MFF comes up. We know that one country alone can block funding on any issue and I would have genuine concerns that may be the case post 2027.

I will take the opportunity to raise an issue that has been brought to our attention by the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. It has raised an issue with another change from the text that was there in July when the new text appeared last week. The text now reads that member states should prioritise restoration measures on those Natura 2000 sites up to 2030. Of course, these are the farmers who are already doing the most in respect of nature restoration. They are the ones who are hugely restricted in how they farm their lands. They already feel enormously let down at the level of support they receive for farming in designated areas. Regardless of all of that, we say to them that we support their being prioritised and doing more when there is no funding from Europe to do it. I do not think that is fair. I ask the Minister of State to consider that point carefully in the context of our national plan. I welcome the fact that widespread engagement will take place with farm organisations and others as part of this.

I also think it is important that the issue raised by the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, OPW, Deputy O'Donovan, in respect of flooding and future possible impacts on flood-relief schemes is looked at by the Government. It should be responded to by the Government. That would be important. I think of Lough Funshinagh in my constituency, where another house is about to go under. Pumps are just about keeping water away from that home but because it is a so-called special area of conservation, nothing will be done in the next few years to help that community as their homes go under. Some homes have already been lost. The decision has been taken to prioritise a special area of conservation that is dying on its feet. There is nothing now living in that area of conservation. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, has not been out on the ground despite telling the EU Commission otherwise. It is groups and issues such as those that we need to ensure this has no impact on. I was concerned by what the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, had to say in that regard. The Government should respond and give communities some clarification.

Now that the law has passed, it is essential that the farm organisations are brought around the table and that there is as widespread consultation as possible. It is essential that farmers will take part and some farmers will be very happy to do so. The voluntary nature is well and good but if there are implications for neighbouring lands, as was the case for the farmers in the midlands that the Minister of State and I both met last year, compensation is important. The Minister of State will recall that those farmers from the midlands were not looking for money but were looking for Bord na Móna to commit to carrying out remedial works should there be any impact on their lands. That was a basic and fair request, and it should be considered again by the Government.

See this speech in context