I congratulate Deputies de Valera and Lawlor for using the Opposition's time this week to discuss this matter of public importance which is causing widespread concern and, in some instances, fear in the farming community, particularly among small fragmented farmholders in the west. Coming from west Mayo I recognise how environmentally sensitive and important is much of the area of my constituency, that what has been inherited and, in the main, preserved by the rural farming community must be passed on intact to the next generation and that only sustainable farming methods will be acceptable.
Directive 92/43 will establish a common framework for the conservation of animals, plants and natural habitats and such a network of special areas of conservation is proposed to be set up throughout Europe to be known as NATURA 2000 and, in addition, each country is required to establish its list of areas to be designated as being of scientific value to be known as natural heritage areas. ASIs were the forerunner of NHAs and everybody now knows the background to the ASI debacle, the unconstitutionality finding by the Supreme Court and that the developers of a worthwhile proposal in Clifden, stymied for several years, could proceed further with their investigation of its viability.
It was recognised that farming practices during the past 20 years have changed as a result of the Common Agricultural Policy with direct income supports and quotas on the one hand and increased production and intensification on the other. However, farmers were encouraged by the European Union, State agencies, State employees and Teagasc officials to undertake this course during the past 20 years, otherwise they would disappear from the farming scene. EU-designed schemes are directly responsible for these changes and farmers must not be blamed for availing of the opportunities, actively supported by Government Departments and State bodies, to ensure that their small farmholdings became viable and were capable of producing sufficient income to maintain farm families. For the past 100 years we have seen a consistent fall in rural population in counties such as Mayo, but the downward trend has dramatically slowed and at the last Census it had stabilised. However, notwithstanding the massive transfer of resources from the EU to Ireland to support the agriculture industry, it is recognised that 80 per cent of those transfers go to less than 20 per cent of the farming community — that 20 per cent do not live in Connacht — and, accordingly, 80 per cent of the farming community get the balance. It is in the west where there are mainly small farmholdings that the average headage and premium payments amount to £3,500, not a large sum of money by any yardstick. Furthermore, recent proposals put on the table during the Irish Presidency, if implemented, could have a further dramatic effect, particularly on farmers aged over 65, as could a capping of the maximum amount of income supports to which participating farmers could be eligible.
Like any other sector, the farming community, in this instance, small farmers in the west, will exercise their rights and take whatever action is necessary to ensure their interests are not jeopardised or undermined and that their future livelihoods can be maintained. Any EU directive or regulation arising therefrom transposed into Irish law must take account of that. Despite the EU directive being passed in 1992 and assurances that there has been widespread consultation and negotiation on the EU habitats directive, that is not how it is seen from the farming community's perspective.
A public meeting organised by the IFA was held on 19 November in Westport and attended by between 500 and 600 farmers, some of whom travelled over 70 and 80 miles over very icy roads. The meeting considered the Minister's reply to inquiries by Deputy de Valera in the House on 12 November when he said that he proposed to give effect to the European Habitats Directive and to transpose the directive into legislation later in the month. The Minister went on to advise that after the passage of the legislation he would propose the best peatland sites for designation as special areas of conservation and that no activity or development likely to have a significantly damaging effect on these sites would be allowed other than on the grounds of human health and public safety. However, one person's perception of what activity or development is likely to have a significantly damaging effect on these sites can be different from another's.
Who is the arbitrator of the standard? Is it to be officials who have never dirtied their hands in farming activity? At the meeting the IFA categorically denied that there was any meaningful negotiation or consultation with the Minister or his officials in respect of SACs. The effect and implication of such a designation has not been comprehended and the general body of farmers want to be assured they will be able to continue with their activities after designation. Otherwise, the implications must be spelt out clearly and unequivocally. If farm incomes are to be affected a compensation package must be negotiated and put in place between the Minister and the representative farm bodies. Nothing short of this will be acceptable. In this respect, the Minister would be well advised to follow the example of his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and his officials as to how best to make progress and achieve cooperation and support from the farming community.
I have seen the maps of the proposed national heritage areas. Substantial parts of my county, especially west Mayo drawing a line from Ballycastle to Linane, are so designated. County Mayo probably has the highest percentage of land mass in the country of proposed natural heritage areas. Much of the land is on divided commonage, held in many instances by large numbers of farmers, some of whom reside and work on the land and some of whom are now living abroad in the UK or the US owing to the lack of job opportunities which could have been offered to them but were not.
Some farm the land more intensively than others. Many of the commonages are proposed natural heritage areas, but the REP scheme has regrettably not had the desired uptake. However, progress has been made and, recognising that the REP scheme is voluntary, it is a matter for the farmer and his REP scheme planner to determine on a compliance with the scheme; especially with regard to stocking levels.
Changes have been made to the REP scheme to make it more attractive to farmers. They were obtained by the skilful negotiation, understanding and experience of the IFA and the Minster for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and made the scheme more attractive and viable. It will be seen to work more on commonage land than heretofore. They include the exemption of the first £2,000 of income under the scheme from affecting social welfare entitlements. Nevertheless, income from the scheme over that level can bring farmers into the tax net or remove their entitlement to social welfare and ancillary benefits, such as medical cards.
The proposed natural heritage areas to be given a statutory footing by amending the Wildlife Act, 1976, have not caused the same level of concern as the special areas of conservation due to the fact that the procedure for notification, appeals and the National Parks and Wildlife Service approval of agriculture grants in respect of NHAs has been redefined as part of the substitution of the NHAs for the old systems of the ESIs. It is the stated intention of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to give notice to every landowner within an NHA of its proposed designation through individual notification sent by post as well as through public notices, which appeared in December 1994 in local newspapers. These notifications are important, not only to encourage participation in the REP scheme, but also to make good the legal shortcomings of the ESI system as found by the courts in the Clifden airport judgment.
However, the provision of special areas of conservation will become compulsory. There is no voluntary aspect to the scheme and any reading and interpretation of the proposed natural habitats regulations makes clear that the designation of farmers' lands as being a special area of conservation will have consequences for the long-term effect and legal status of that holding.
The proposed regulations allow the EU Commission to initiate consultation with the Minister in the case of a site that is not included. They further provide for restrictions in the carrying out of operations and activities on those sites. Who determines the operations or activities? Are they to be known in advance of the signing of the regulations or are they to be forced on the farming community after they become law?
Some of these sites have been known as European sites and the landowner must not undertake any operation or activity mentioned in a notice unless that person has obtained the prior permission of the Minister. The Minister must advise on the kind of activities he considers will not be permissible on such sites so that the farming community can discuss their effects on future farming practices.
The regulations further provide that the Minister may take a court injunction against any person undertaking any operation or activity inside or outside a European site — this will lead to an extension of such sites — or on a site placed on the list under regulation, or where consultation has been initiated by the EU. Furthermore, the regulations provide for the compensation of landowners whose land is affected by designation.
I have only seen the explanatory memorandum to date. I have not seen the proposed draft regulations, but doubtless they will be detailed and comprehensive to give effect to the intention, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. They appear to provide for objections to be lodged within a period of two months and, following consideration of such objections, for transmission of the list to the EU Commission. Who is to hear these objections? Will it be a body of persons employed in the Minister's Department or an independent appeals mechanism?
How is the level of compensation to be assessed in respect of land affected by designation? The regulations provide that compensation is payable based on the amount equal to the damage suffered by the owner or occupier by the depreciation of an interest in the land to which he is entitled as a result of the discontinuance, or the compliance with the conditions on the continuance, of any use of the land consequent on designation as a special area of conservation. Terminology such as this should lead to a viable solicitor's practice in terms of determining levels of compensation for those who have been driven out of their customary way of life.
How are these damages to be assessed? Is it on a once-off basis and paid as a lump sum or by instalments? Is it to be calculated over a period of years, with the farmer in question being assessed on the basis of his capability to undertake normal farming activity depending on his age or other factors? Is the compensation to be taxable if received as a lump sum or as an income? The IFA and the other representative groups are entitled to this information before matters are signed into law. Regulations can be signed by the Minister without being debated in this House. I am delighted, therefore, that Deputy de Valera moved this motion to make the Minister accountable.
The regulations go on to provide for the erection of notices on lands indicating the existence of the designation. Is the farmer to be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such notices? The regulations, especially the explanatory memorandum, which I have only had sight of, raise many serious questions. The Minister is about to sign regulations when the groups representing farmers, especially the small farmers of the west, state that there has been no meaningful negotiation and consultation and that many questions remain unanswered.
