Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

The motion reads:

— the Nature Restoration Law aims to halt the decline of nature, work towards restoring habitats across the European Union (EU), whilst also targeting habitats that contribute most to the capture and storage of carbon;

— the Nature Restoration Law will target 20 per cent of each EU Member States land area and, as Ireland comprises of 6.9 million hectares of land, the Nature Restoration Law will potentially be applied to 1.38 million hectares.

Notwithstanding the nods to the rhetoric of just transition, I see the motion as an attempt to water down an already severely watered-down nature restoration law. The motion makes no mention of the fact that modern industrial farming aimed at maximising profit is in contradiction to biodiversity and restoration of nature. In that context, to call on the Government to "ensure that farmland targeted under the Nature Restoration Law can continue to operate a range of agricultural activities that ensures that these lands can continue to be defined as an agricultural area under CAP programmes, and that such status can be maintained" can only be seen as a backward step. Many people in the past week decided to cast votes for Independent candidates. Many who cast those votes saw them as votes for change and progress. The motion is a good example of how right-wing Independents stand in the way of progress and progressive change. Four of the Deputies who signed the motion are former members of Fine Gael.

I mentioned that the nature restoration law has already been watered down. This happened last year in the European Parliament when the European People's Party - the sister party of Fine Gael - and the far right joined forces to support a raft of amendments, for example, adding conditions under which application of the law may be suspended. This is an example of what the Government describes as centre-right politicians joining forces with the far right not just on migration issues but to block progressive change on climate. The nature restoration law does not need to be watered down but to be strengthened. I have run out of time. I hope to be able to expand on that at a later date.

See this speech in context