Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There has been much commentary regarding Sinn Féin and the nature restoration law. I welcome the comments of all those who remarked on how we voted, but then continued with their speeches attacking the nature restoration law. In fairness, Deputies Kerrane, Carthy and O'Rourke outlined clearly why Chris MacManus voted the way he did and the decisions made by Sinn Féin in that regard. No one should have a difficulty with parliamentarians at European or domestic levels or any other level trying to improve a particular law.

The law in question is now in place and in action and we have a period of time to make it work here and now, and that is the bit that matters. As stated by many others, no one is against the idea of nature restoration, or so I would like to think. I agree with Deputy Ó Cathasaigh that it was definitely worth listening to what Deputy Ó Cuív had to say. There must be some reality to our discussion on nature restoration and biodiversity. We all know the issues that exist. The Minister of State and I have interacted on this many times. A reality check is needed, and I will throw one in. I am from Dundalk. Where I live is redeemed land. I assume nobody is considering rewetting it because to do so would create issues. All joking aside, we all know the significant plans for catchment flood risk assessment and management and flood protection. We need to make sure that other laws are not unintentionally impacting on the ability to deliver in that regard.

We have the nature restoration law and we all know what we want to see. In many cases this will involve farmers or public land. It will be possible to do this in a voluntary way and we should ensure there are no obstacles to it happening. As has been said by many others for a considerable time, however, there is sometimes a narrative that pits farmers against an environmental lobby. It is utterly unfair and does not work for anybody. I was at an IFA meeting recently. I have referred to this many times before, and I apologise for repeating myself, but it is hardly the first time a sentiment or idea was repeated in this illustrious Chamber. A former president of the IFA was present at the meeting. There was an element of giving out about form filling, the hoops farmers sometimes have to jump through and their feeling that they sometimes have to provide the same information to multiple agencies. In fairness, the straight answer given was that if you are running a business, going into a bank or having any conversation, the first thing on the agenda is sustainability and that is where we have to get to. There is an acceptance among the farming community of the moves that need to be made.

Sometimes, you get fed up saying the same things. It is a case of working alongside people to deliver what needs to be delivered. Why would we not do so? We know of the various crises throughout the world at present. We know that what we really need to ensure is that we have an ability and a facility to deliver food. We know we are among the best at delivering that in an environmental way. We need to work alongside farmers to make any changes that need to be made. Many people have made that point previously. In fairness, farmers followed incentives. That is what they have done for some time. Many farmers to whom I have spoken got into dairy farming on the basis that somebody from Teagasc or the Department rang them and said they were looking for a young farmer who might be interested in doing this. If we are looking at changing the way we do things, we need to have those sorts of conversations on a sustainable way for farming and farmers into the future. We know many farmers do not believe they have that sustainability at present. We have a period of time in which to act and we need a plan; it is as simple as that. I know that is easily said, but we need something that is doable and can be put into play.

Unfortunately, I may have overshot my time. Given that we are discussing biodiversity, I had intended to bring up the dangers at what is now a nuclear waste facility at Sellafield.

Through the committee on the environment, I have been in contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have got answers from the EPA and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. I am not sure those answers are up to scratch. We need to look at this. We are talking about one of the most hazardous spots in Europe as regards nuclear waste.

See this speech in context