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

I thank the Regional Group for bringing forward this motion on the nature restoration law because it gives us an opportunity to discuss and debate what might or might not be put onto the Statute Book. I say "might not be" because, of course, we are discussing an item of failed European legislation. As a law, it was controversial from day one, with no agreement at several EU committees, and that was absolutely unprecedented. Eventually, however, after a very rocky path in trilogues and in the Parliament, and following desperate attempts by the then Commissioner Timmermans to change and modify the legislation, he got it over the line and the European Parliament voted narrowly in favour. Nevertheless, it seems to have fallen at the final hurdle, and the European Environment Council could not reach agreement. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is here. It is my understanding that because of an Irish-led initiative by the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State, we are trying to see whether agreement can be reached by 17 June. I say this just because it is the context in which we are discussing this legislation.

Another point I want to make very clearly is that there is no dedicated fund at European level. There is no money of any kind to support farmers, who will have to comply with this legislation if it becomes law.

We certainly have Ministers standing up in this Chamber to tell us this will be resourced, but let me be clear: this law is not funded at EU level. Indeed, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will be aware that countries like Denmark supported this law specifically on the basis that there would be no EU funding. While we can put a national fund in place, it must be ring-fenced and not lumped in with other climate change mitigation measures. We need it to be specifically earmarked for the implementation of this law, if it becomes law. We need guarantees from Government on this and not just some wishy-washy commitment to including it in a package that also includes electric car charging points and retrofitting. These are all important things but we need a separate dedicated fund.

Having said all of that, this motion has merit, as has the law itself. Those of us who have read the legislation know it is voluntary for individual farmers but we also know that, when a commitment is imposed on a state, for example, on Ireland, it will, today or tomorrow, put policies and plans in place that individual farmers will have little choice but to be part of. Anybody who has followed the ongoing impacts of the habitats directive will know what I mean. Indeed, the habitats directive, which was signed into law in the last century, will be central to the outworkings of this law because much of the land impacted by the law is drained peatland. The legislation now includes a derogation but, as we all know, derogations come and go. The importance of this motion is that it proposes that those drained peatlands can continue to be defined as agricultural areas under the CAP. This means that CAP payments could continue to be paid on the land, not by way of derogation but by right. If the House can agree on that, it will be a step forward. It is a long way from perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

See this speech in context