Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will not take up anything like that amount of time as this is not my area of expertise. I welcome the Minister of State. We in Fianna Fáil welcome the Bill. It brings a rational conclusion to what was a very difficult period in the term of the previous Government. The Minister of State's predecessor and my constituency colleague, the former Minister, Jimmy Deenihan, effectively lost his seat over it, which is something I did not take any pleasure in because he was a big loss to politics and a big loss to his constituency. However, the matter became a completely irrational argument and no one was prepared to compromise, so it is fitting enough that the same party in government has undone the damage to a certain extent at this stage, and we welcome that.

I would like to highlight just one or two points. The Minister of State was good enough to refer in his speech to the fact that Deputy Ó Cuív put forward the proposal in the Dáil that other reviews would be carried out in other natural heritage areas. The Minister of State has undertaken to consider this and possibly include it in the final Bill.

The Bill gives legislative effect to the review recommendation to de-designate 46 national heritage areas. It de-designates 39 natural heritage areas, with part de-designation of seven other areas. Reconfiguring the network will lead to the safeguarding of a greater area of protected bog habitat, with around 2,500 fewer actively cut turf plots than exist currently. To counteract the impact of de-designation, a further 25 raised bogs which are in public ownership or where there is reduced turf cutting pressure will be designated. This will compensate for the bogs where cutting is proposed to continue.

What has been left out of the debate thus far is that we are all conservationists, and the greatest conservationists of all are the practitioners of rural life, be they farmers or turf cutters. They know and respect nature. Sometimes an image is created in refined debating circles that anyone living outside of the Dublin area is some kind of environmental philistine and that we do not appreciate nature. Of course we do. What was lacking in the debate, however, or in the previous attempts to handle this issue, was recognition of the fact that we have other issues concerning turf cutting, especially the areas of fuel poverty and reduced rural incomes. Rural household incomes in the midlands, for instance, are 9.4% below the national average. The majority of affected bogs are located in counties with the lowest disposable incomes, and this must be a central factor when we make arrangements to stop cutting turf. Turf is a very inexpensive source of fuel, being up to 60% cheaper than oil. The cost of turf is basically in the labour. Turf cutting must be recognised as a valuable source of farm or off-farm income. A cessation policy without adequate compensation schemes would expose another significant number of households to fuel poverty. Any compensation scheme must enable turf cutters to have a choice between adequate compensation, relocation or turf delivered to the door.Monetary compensation must be based on comprehensive analysis of land based on the income derived by families in recent years. We support the Minister of State on the Bill and welcome the fact that he is open to considering further reviews.