Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. Ceapaim go bhfuil sé ag fanacht le haghaidh an Seanadóir Joe Flaherty. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond is continuing for the third and fourth Commencement matters.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ar dtús, I know we lauded the successes of many people in soccer at the outset but before I get to the important business of my Commencement matter, I wish to single out the heroics of young Donegal man Dylan Browne McMonagle over the weekend, who was crowned Irish Champion Jockey. He unseated six-time winner Colin Keane with 95 winners. Not only that, on Saturday night, he went over the US and recorded an historic Breeders' Cup win for Willie Mullins and is now heading off to Tokyo for the off-season in Ireland.He will no doubt return to perform more heroics next year. I hope the House will, on his return from Tokyo, invite him and his family to Leinster House to applaud what has been a huge success for this stellar young man in Irish sport.

The matter before the House relates to the EPA's report on large-scale illegal peat extraction. Like many people in rural Ireland, I am increasingly perplexed by the EPA, particularly in the aftermath of the report in question, which is riddled with inconsistencies. I am worried that we are relying on the EPA as we try to secure the continuation of our nitrates derogation from the EU. I am obliged to ask whether, on the basis of the detail in the report, anyone actually polices the EPA.

The report covers nine counties. It is riddled with significant and misleading errors. I will focus on the four sites in County Longford that are mentioned. I do so on the basis of an application for information under the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations. I will deal with the four sites in order. The site at Coolcraff is owned by Bord na Móna. In its report, the EPA said that Bord na Móna has ceased commercial harvesting and that large-scale remediation programmes are under way. How can the EPA honestly include this site in a report on large-scale illegal peat harvesting when the inspectors are fully aware that production at the site ceased in 2020?

The second site at Clooniher and Annaghcooleen comprises a very small area of bog measuring just under 5 ha. This site is being used for horticultural peat, and the rest is of the peat is being used for domestic fuel. How can the EPA honestly include an area of just under 5 ha as large-scale illegal peat harvesting when its inspectors are fully aware that it covers just 5 ha?

The next site lies across the three townlands of Derrymore, Trillickacurry and Ballymakeegan. The EPA took legal proceedings against Derrymore Peat Limited in relation to this site in August 2022. On foot of that court case, it was proven without doubt that there was no hydrological connection to any other area. In his ruling, Judge Owens dismissed all the charges against the defendant in the case. Peat in the area is now being harvested by Derrymore Peat, which applied to Longford County Council for a section 5 exemption. The council subsequently submitted that application to An Bord Pleanála on 20 January last. We are still awaiting a decision on it. EPA inspectors have visited the site on numerous occasions. How can the EPA honestly state that this site is being used for large-scale illegal peat harvesting when its inspectors are fully aware that the site is less than 28 hectares in size?

I welcome the Minister of State’s response on those questions. I hope to deal with the remaining site when I come back in.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us call a spade a spade. I am quite constrained in what I can answer here. The Senator will understand why. I will go through the detail now.

The EPA is an independent public body established under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. The purpose of the EPA is “to protect, improve and restore our environment through regulation, scientific knowledge and working with others”. This reflects its three core roles: as an environmental regulator; as a key source of trusted scientific evidence and knowledge; and as a voice for the environment through leadership, advocacy and collaborating and partnering with others to deliver better environmental outcomes. In carrying out its mandate, the EPA performs a wide variety of functions.

The key point to reiterate is that the agency is an independent public body established under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. As a result, it is entirely independent in the exercise of its functions, including enforcement, under that Act. While it would not be appropriate to speak to individual enforcement actions carried out by the agency, the enforcement of legislation that protects our environment should be supported.

The large-scale commercial extraction of peat is subject to planning legislation. Exemptions apply in specific circumstances and, depending on the scale of the activity, may necessitate the granting of an integrated pollution control, IPC, licence from the EPA. The regulatory regime is designed to control how the large-scale commercial extraction of peat takes place in order to ensure that the activity is carried on in an environmentally sound manner consistent with national and EU legislation. The EPA has been active in its efforts to control the unregulated large-scale peat sector and has committed to continue its enforcement actions in this regard. Details of the enforcement action taken by the EPA are set out in the agency’s Large Scale Illegal Peat Extraction report, which was published, as the Senator set out, in June. The report notes that the EPA was in the process of investigating 38 large-scale peat extraction operations over seven counties. The report also notes that the EPA engaged with the relevant local authorities in terms of the sector’s enforcement of environmental legislation and summarises the legislation that is applicable in the context of peat extraction, including with regard to planning, environmental impact assessment, appropriate assessment and IPC licensing.

As previously stated, while it would be inappropriate to speak to individual enforcement actions taken by the EPA, the enforcement of any legislation that protects our environment should be supported. Perhaps there is another forum at which the Senator might be able to bring in the EPA to go into the detail on the matter he has raised.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate that he is probably restricted in much of what he can say, but he has to understand the frustration being felt across rural Ireland that we have an independent State agency that is seemingly answerable to nobody.

The fourth site to which I refer lies across a number of townlands. The EPA, Longford County Council and everyone living in the areas surrounding the site are aware that there was no peat harvested there from as far back as 2020, and at least 2022. The EPA is aware of that, yet it included the detail in a report. Arising from that report, there was a piece in the Longford Leader which stated, "four sites above 50 hectares - an area of more than 200 hectares in total - has been identified in county Longford with heavy machinery used during industrial type operations." That is totally misleading. It is deeply wrong that the EPA can publish something as flawed as that. It is absolutely incorrect. It was aware that Bord na Móna lawfully operated nine different peatland complexes across 13 counties. It cited that as fact when that is not correct. It also gave export figures in the report which, again, were deeply flawed. It clearly has no insight into or grasp of how those export figures are calculated.

There is deep frustration with the EPA across rural Ireland. We are concerned because it appears that nobody is policing this. A big bone of contention and concern for us in rural Ireland is that we are relying on the EPA to bat for us when we are seeking the retention of our nitrates derogation from the EU. I am adamant that the EPA does not want to hold onto that derogation. It very much has a biased single agenda. It is anti-rural Ireland and anti-farming.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of Climate, Energy and Environment, on behalf of which I am taking matter, is responsible for setting the policy and legislative framework within which the key environmental regulators discharge their functions, including the agency with regard to the environmental licensing of large industrial installations. The Minister for Climate, Energy and Environment, Deputy O’Brien, is constrained by the provisions of sections 79(3) and 86(5) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to exercise any power or control in relation to the performance in particular circumstances by the agency of a function assigned to it. The agency continues to inspect sites where it believes peat extraction may be taking place illegally and has engaged with the relevant local authorities in terms of that sector’s enforcement of environmental legislation.

On the points raised by the Senator, there are various forums at which the agency can be held to account. I encourage him to seek to deal with the agency at those forums.

In relation to the point on the nitrates directive, we put all our faith in the Minister for agriculture, Martin Heydon. I certainly have faith in him.