Vol. 475 No. 3
4 Miss de Valera asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the number of farmers who will be affected by the designation of special areas of conservation; the number of these farmers who have been notified to date; and the agreement reached with the farming organisations in relation to consultations and compensation. [4720/97]
It is estimated that there are about 10,000 landowners/occupiers in areas to be designated as special areas of conservation. The process of notification of proposed SAC designations will begin after I make regulations to give effect to the EU Habitats Directive. I propose to sign these regulations on Wednesday next, 26 February.
Since the middle of last year, I and my officials have had 15 meetings with farming organisations on all aspects of the implementation in Ireland of the Habitats Directive, including compensation for any restrictions arising. There have also been a number of meetings with conservation interests. Considerable progress has been made on many issues, including compensation, procedures for consultation, conditions for farming in SACs, and on an appeals system. It has been agreed that compensation will be payable for income and capital losses arising for farmers as a result of SAC designations. The form and level of compensation is still under discussion and thus it would not be helpful to comment further on this issue at this time.
The process which will ultimately lead to SAC designation will begin when my Department writes to landowners/occupiers known to own or use land in proposed SACs. They will receive details, including maps, of the designation proposals, the conditions applicable to the sites, and information on appeals and objections mechanisms and compensation arrangements.
In addition, my Department will shortly initiate an intensive campaign to inform people about SACs and their implications and to offer detailed information. Details of designation proposals will be advertised in local newspapers and on local radio. These advertisements will inform the public of the designation proposals and give contact details, including a freephone information line which my Department will operate. Public meetings will be held in various locations around the country at which staff of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will listen to the concerns of farmers and others and explain exactly what SAC designations mean. Those affected by designation proposals will have three months during which they can object, on scientific grounds, to the proposal. They can also object to the conditions proposed for their lands. An independent advisory board will be appointed with equal representation between landowners and other conservation interests and with an independent chairperson to make recommendations to me on objections to designations or levels of restrictions arising from SAC designations. Independent arbitration will also be available on the level of compensation to be paid, in the event of agreement not being reached.
Will the Minister clarify the arbitration system? Has compensation for turbary rights been discussed; and if so, what has been the outcome of those discussions? Has compensation for those who collect seaweed along the seashore, which is used, as the Minister knows, for fertiliser, formed part of the discussions and, if so, what was the result of those discussions? What compensation is likely for those who have fish farms in an area which is designated as a SAC?
Detail of the compensation has not been finalised so I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the Deputy, but I am anxious to answer the questions she raised, which are very reasonable.
Turbary and seaweed rights formed part of the talks. In all of these talks, which we completed on Monday evening with the farming interests, there were requests for a period of time to consult with component organisations on the details of the discussions to date. That is why I propose to sign the regulations next Wednesday. That will simply implement the directive in a legal sense. The process of designation is a subsequent one and the talks dealt with designation and issues of appeal and compensation.
I recall clearly that turbary and seaweed rights were addressed.
Fish farms?
Yes. To the best of my knowledge, a meeting was organised between officials of my Departments and representatives of the fish farming organisation.
I note with interest that the Minister intends signing this directive next Wednesday. Will he name the organisations with whom he has been consulting? We all know that the IFA has been in consultation with the Minister and that it wrought a number of concessions due to its good powers of negotiation. Are we, as Members of the Oireachtas, excluded from this process of consultation? We have not yet been given the opportunity, even with the imminent signing of the directive, to debate the issue in the House or in committee.
The organisations which have been consulted include the usual representative conservation organisations who are aware of what has been happening, as well as the farming organisations. There were a number of positive discussions with the ICMSA very early on. There have been several meetings with representatives of the IFA. All of the organisations were consulted.
When Ireland joined the EU, it took responsibility for the implementation of directives. We have been in default of our obligations to the Union by not implementing this Directive and signing it into law. The signing of it simply establishes that about which we are speaking. The designation is the important part, and it is on that point that there was need for consultation. There was considerable confusion in the minds of the public about the process of signature and designation and I decided it was best to proceed with consensus and to have as many things dealt with as possible. Hence, I allowed extra time for this.
It is not true that the House will not have an opportunity to discuss it. I have indicated to the Whips that when matters have been agreed between those involved, the farmers on one side and those with conservation interests and the public on the other, I will facilitate Members who wish to table a motion to note the process of designation and its outcome.
It will be a fait accompli at that stage.
It will be all over at that stage.
That is — yet again — retrospective consultation.
It is important that there should not be any confusion about this. It is not of value to anybody to deliberately seek to confuse the issue of signature of the directive and the designation process. The issue as to how it affects the public is the designation process.
That is why a debate should take place now before it is signed.
I should have mentioned that in accordance with our new procedures I can and shall take replies to Questions Nos. 4 and 5 in ordinary time. Therefore, I can hear questions from other Deputies in respect of Question No. 4.
Will the Minister give an assurance when he signs the directive next week that no designation or final arrangements for them will take place pending debate and consultation with those who represent all the people, Members of this House?
The Deputy must not have listened to my reply. I will sign the directive next Wednesday and I will honour my commitment immediately to the different organisations with which we have been in negotiation. They have sought maps, our proposals and their publication and the creation of a consultation process, and I will do that. If at that time any Member wants to table a motion on it, I will have no difficulty coming into the House to explain the process of consultation and what has been agreed with the organisations.
The question seeks information from the Minister on the agreement on compensation and he referred to his discussions with various organisations. He has not informed Members of this House of any of the details of the proposed compensation package. That is a matter of extreme importance and of great concern to constituents in western constituencies who will be seriously affected following the implementation of this directive. I am anxious to obtain information on the compensation package he has offered. Out of courtesy to Members who have represented the west for many years, that information should be made available to Members who are interested in this matter.
In the first instance I was anxious to be courteous to those with whom I was negotiating in good faith and who requested I allow them a week to consult their members. When that is done and the directive is signed next Wednesday, I will have no difficulty making the proposals available for discussion in this House.
It will be all over then.
I will explain why the Deputy is once again wrong on that. I am surprised a Deputy with as much Cabinet experience as Deputy Molloy is not aware that the financial proposals must be agreed by the Government and by Europe. I do not have any difficulty in offering the House an opportunity of noting, by way of motion, what proposals have been agreed between my Department, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the farming interests.
After the event.
Will the Minister agree that under the Constitution he has a primary obligation to consult this House? Is he telling us that designations will not take place and that financial arrangements will not be made until there is full and meaningful consultations with the elected representatives of the people?
We are having repetition.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to elicit answers from the Minister. Will he agree that a large number of people, some of whom are involved in agriculture, are not represented by any of the organisations he mentioned?
I will try to be as positive as I can. There are those who are interested in conservation. One does not have to own land to be interested in the value of the directive or conservation. There are those who farm. I am restraining myself in regard to Deputy de Valera's reminders to me about my constitutional role and returning to consult Members. Deputy de Valera seeks to confuse matters deliberately in regard to the process of signature and designation. One could argue it is irresponsible to join the European Union and be unwilling to allow a discussion on the text of a directive — that is the signature process. On the designation process the proposals must be submitted to the Government and Europe. If people want to accelerate the process, they can do so by tabling a motion to note the proposals that are being made and agreed widespread support for this.
I will afford Members an opportunity in the House to discuss the question of consultation. It is nonsense to say there is not much point in discussing it after the signature process because Deputies are aware we cannot change the terms of a directive before us for signature before we discuss its implementation.
What about members of the farming community who are not members of the organisations mentioned? How has the Minister consulted them?
Order, please. This matter has been dealt with adequately, but I will hear a final brief question from Deputy Molloy.
This issue is of importance to a large number of people but we have elicited very little information from the Minister on it. There is no confusion in my mind on the difference between signing the directive on whatever date he chooses and its implementation. I am asking questions about the way in which farmers will be compensated for losses they will incur because of the major changes in the farm practices they will have to implement to comply with the terms of this directive. Why is the Minister so reluctant to take Members into his confidence at this stage when he is having discussions on these details with outside organisations? I am conscious this directive has been under discussion for many years. Opposition Members dealt with this directive at meetings when other parties were in Government.
No farmer participating in the schemes that will arise in adjusting the designated areas will be at a loss. I look forward to hearing Members' reflections on it in the House. After the signing of the directive, there will be a process of advertisement, provision of maps, consultation, the provision of a freefone service and information. Instead of the type of reluctance represented by some Deputies about this, a large number of people are looking forward to this new type of ecological management which implementation of the directive will mean.
We do not look forward to the fact that there will not be consultation.
There is no consultation.
Deputy de Valera is against this.
It is the secrecy that worries us.
