Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, for coming to the House. I am conscious he is a rural Deputy as well as a Minister of State. He represents Longford and Westmeath where there are many farmers. I will spend most of my time speaking about engagement with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA. There was very little talk, if any, about the farming community in the Minister of State's presentation. I will speak about this in some detail. I have no difficulties with the Bill but I have issues with regard to adequate compensation and a framework for compensation for the farmers whom we, Government policy and the Minister of State value. We need to see this reflected in the legislation and I will set out a number of reasons for this.

I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for its assessment of the pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister of State thanked the Oireachtas joint committee for its work in his speech. The report from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service states 13 recommendations were made by the committee. It states the key issues in two of the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations are reflected in the Bill. It states the Bill may be described as adopting an approach consistent with eight more of the recommendations but it is still unclear. The report also states the key issues in three of the recommendations have not been accepted or implemented in the Bill. This is from the pre-legislative scrutiny and a bit of movement is possible. As always, I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service team for its work, particularly on this Bill.

As the Minister of State knows, and it is a well thrashed-out cliché although it is true, farmers are the custodians of the environment. They understand their responsibility to comply with regulations and to protect and improve water quality. Farmers understand that water is a critical natural resource for them. It is a resource they need and it is consistent with the supply of their animals, crops and agricultural enterprises. It is a given. This is not the case for farmers alone. Everyone needs water. We need clean water coming in but we also need to be conscious of the water we flush out and its impact on the environment, human health, animal health and ecosystems. We must balance all of these and be mindful of our international and European obligations.

With regard to water abstraction compensation payments, the IFA states that where abstraction takes place on farm land and results in land sterilisation, crop loss and disturbance that fair and equitable compensation must be paid to the farmers.I am a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and have had a lot of engagement with the IFA, and I am also on the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The IFA has, over a long number of years, advocated for the development of an equitable national package of measures, including compensation to replace the ad hocarrangements implemented by local authorities and Irish Water.

The right to compensation is reflected in sections 14 and 15 of the Water Supplies Act 1942. The Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Bill proposes to repeal the 1942 Act, including sections 14 and 15, and replace them with a provision which is more limited in scope. The IFA has serious concerns regarding what is proposed in the Bill in terms of compensation, and we need to tease out its concerns. The Minister will be supportive of that.

This process is one in which we can tease out its issues. That is important. I seek to try to tease them out. It will be a matter for all of us. I have no doubt other Members across the House will have similar issues and concerns as we go through the various stages of the Bill. The main concerns of the IFA include the limits of any claim for compensation to within two years of the authorised abstraction commencing. It has stated that this would potentially allow the State to step aside from its existing obligations to farmers, resulting in a haphazard approach across the country by different local authorities and leaving many compensation issues unresolved.

I told the IFA to identify both its problems and solutions, because we will examine them. It proposed that we address removing the time limit on a claim of compensation or extending the period. It went on to propose there should be an obligation on Irish Water to notify all farmers directly by registered post that they may be impacted by the process of water abstraction. Farmers want to hear things formally, rather than hearing something on the road. The IFA proposes a formal mechanism of communication and notification. It stated that a national protocol needs to be developed, which sounds reasonable to me, and a package that resolves concerns regarding losses arising where abstractions are imposed on farmland.

The requirement to notify impacted farmers will enable them to engage with the planning processes and any other processes involved, and would facilitate and allow them to bring their views to the attention of the relevant agencies. That is vital and I want to make that clear here today. These are reasonable things. It is about public engagement, knowing what is proposed and the outcomes and having reasonable negotiation. Collective negotiation is more ideal. It is very difficult to have single negotiations across acquisitions or any measures involving farmland. There is, perhaps, a mechanism for dealing with that. We have seen that with the National Transport Authority, NTA, and other bodies in respect of infrastructural projects.

The IFA has told me it is highly unusual - I also believe this - that when it comes to redress, the burden of proof of loss would be placed on individual farmers. That is of concern to the IFA. For example, Irish Water's sister company, Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, recognised from the outset that the loss exists and endeavours to address such losses through negotiation. That is important. The 1942 Act clearly sets out the relevant legislation for the determination of compensation. However, this Bill provides no framework for the determination of compensation for farmers. The Bill should be amended to address this and I will bring some reasonable amendments to the House for debate at a future date in order that we can have clarity about the existing frameworks were compensation and how they will apply in a practical sense.

There is also the issue of mediation. Mediation is widely used and is an accepted alternative to a dispute resolution mechanism. It should be pursued and we should make provision for that in the Bill. For individual citizens such as farmers, mediation represents a more affordable mechanism. We know the cost of courts and litigation. It represents an affordable mechanism to arrive at an outcome where an agreement is not reached. Mediation is an option we should consider. The Bill should include an obligation on all parties to first engage in mediation by default. Engagement is always active and never passive. I support such a mechanism.

The Bill proposes to extend the powers of Irish Water to take a water supply beyond the land it owns or acquires. However, it fails to adequately provide for the necessary package of measures and frameworks, including compensation, and such related powers, if exercised.

I have focused on the IFA and farmers but I did so because I do not think there has been enough debate about that. We have not had an opportunity to debate these matters. They do not come under the remit of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government; they are more pertinent to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine. I have told the IFA we have to engage. The Bill is essential and important, and we will try to put forward reasonable and practical amendments that I hope we can work collectively across the House to pass.